Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > The War on Women      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 GreenThumbz18
Joined: 4/25/2012
Msg: 647
The War on WomenPage 29 of 31    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31)
^^^^^^
NDT - I'm reminding our readers that the "battle between the sexes" has been ongoing since Adam & Eve. I wonder how many wars have really been caused by women, indirectly or directly, but that's another subject.
The topic of this thread, "the War on Women" is a joke, in my opinion. A left-wing slur on the right, if you can believe they would do that. Discrimination in any form was outlawed almost 50 years ago, and if any person gets paid less than another for the same work done, that employer can be in a lot of trouble.
I don't know the statistics of abortion, but it's my guess that the great majority are not rape-related.
As an aside, I was at a large social function last month, and I was sitting within earshot of a half-dozen men talking about the medical business. 2 of them were doctors, early 40's , I would say. This one doctor was saying that when he met his fiancee, they discussed abortion and they were both cool with that, if the situation arose. But when he was in medical school, and had to dissect fetuses, he changed his mind on abortion. After seeing and touching fetuses, he could no longer feel so free about aborting them.
It's also interesting that if I impregnate a woman, it's HER decision what to do, I have NO say in the matter, but if she chooses to have the baby, I am responsible to pay for it for a minimum of 18 years !!! Isn't that kind of weird??? I DON'T get to decide, but I DO have to pay ....
Is that what you call equity?
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 648
The War on Women
Posted: 10/27/2012 9:45:09 AM
I'm sitting here reading the angry responses in the last few posts thinking: "what kind of relationship a man has with a woman when he feels that woman dupped him into supporting a child from a different father?" and "How horrible for that child to be around such a man." and "Does the man have no responsibility for his poor choices?" and "isn't birth-control at least 50% his responsibility?"... that and more thoughts.

I've already posted that in committed, loving, and lasting relationships the choice for life or not exists as a communal decision between a husband and wife (or two partners)...for if it is not, then there exists no true lasting/loving/committed relationship.

And then there's the neo-con viewpoint that women had it better in the 50's..and I think what planet are these ppl from to think such a thing? There may have been spousal abuse laws on the books, but these laws were largely ignored....for a man was master of his home and wife.

Try as the neo-con's might, to deny the war on women, it is a reality that many women fear...the loss of their reproductive health rights is a big issue for many of them and the main reason that the majority of women voters tend to support democrat ideals.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 649
The War on Women
Posted: 10/27/2012 11:03:50 AM
Who here hasn't known someone who was cheated on, man and woman alike? Who here hasn't seen someone selfish, or abusive take advantage of their partner woman and man alike?

To reduce the argument on rape, a violent crime and personal violation, to a tit-for-tat situation becuase someone got taken advantage of is silly.

Are there bad people, or immoral people in the world? Absolutely! Ain't gonna change that, they come equally in both genders. Pick any day you want, wander over to the relationship or dating section of the forums. See the damaged justify all types of behavior...or read the "bad date" thread..then grimace at some of the stories.

Every day, some of us, probably most receive in our junk mail inbox, literally half a dozen scams about money we are about to receive. Doesn't mean everyone on the net is a scammer. I'm sure they are in part successful with the less sophisticated. Doesn't make it right either!

But equating a violent crime, with a con job...whie both are reprehensable, they are NOT the same.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 650
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 10/27/2012 11:11:28 AM
To reduce the argument on rape, a violent crime and personal violation, to a tit-for-tat situation becuase someone got taken advantage of is silly.


Okay... how about no argument. You win. Now, lets move on. Someone has proposed that victims of rape that had the child were given a benefit of not having their food-stamps and welfare benefits decreased regardless of future laws proposing that fathers have a higher degree of responsibility for the financial burdens of single mothers raising their child.

Do you agree with this or no... they should be treated equally.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 651
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 10/27/2012 11:18:00 AM
#730

The cornerstone of Roe V. Wade was that people have a right to privacy when it come to their medical decisions.


Roe involves privacy, but it was not about medical decisions in general. The Roe majority declared, without even trying to explain its reasoning, that the general right to personal privacy the Court had made up in earlier decisions extended to abortion. This series of decisions, all of which are based on a broad interpretation the "liberty" part of the Fourteen Amendment's Due Process Clause, began with Meyer v. Nebraska in 1923. The Court has expanded this right so it now includes decisions about child rearing and education, marriage, procreation, and ending medical treatment.



People don't have "different" rights dependent on which area of the country they live in.


That is only true if you are talking about rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, or rights not mentioned in the Constitution but so basic they're assumed to have been generally recognized when the Constitution was written. But even those rights are not absolute. A state could make a law that deprived people of even a fundamental right, if it could prove the law was necessary to achieve some compelling government purpose. And how far a state law can limit a right *does* depend on which state a person lives in.

The Bill of Rights limited only the federal government until about 1900. Each state could limit a right as little or as much as the majority there saw fit, within the limits of the state constitution. But then, using 14th Amendment Due Process as its rationale, the Supreme Court applied first one provision of the Bill of Rights and then another to the states in a long series of decisions. It wasn't until 1947 that the Court applied the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to states--before that, any state that wanted could have had its own official religion. And it was only two years ago that the Second Amendment was first applied to the states--before that, each one could limit a person's right to keep and bear arms however it chose.

Even now, not everything in the Bill of Rights applies to states. A couple examples. The 5th Amendment's guarantee of indictment by a grand jury for serious crimes applies in federal court, but not in all states. New York and most eastern states do it that way, but California and most western states do not. And the 7th Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial in civil cases involving more than $20 doesn't apply to states--each state is free to grant that right or deny it. So contrary to what you claim, people do have different rights, depending on what area of the country they live in.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 652
The War on Women
Posted: 10/27/2012 11:29:38 AM
"Do you agree with this or no"

Not sure, is this part of the Crime Victims Compensation Board? I'm actually not sure how and what is compensated for. If you are the victim of a mugging and are shot, I think if we are going to make someone whole, their hospital bills should be covered.

But this is different. Unlike a bullet wound that heals over time. This is the gift that keeps on giving for 18 years, if the mother chooses to have it and keep it. Thinking about it, you should be ALL IN on this! They are doing what you guys want, having the baby and NOT an abortion.

What is "treated equally" anyway? Ryan's budget(which romney at least, at some points, embraced) cut most social benefits, including food and help for single mothers. We obviously from all that has been said, both on the campaign and in Congress, view and have a different idea of what "treated equally" is...

In some cases, many republicans believe we are ALL in our own little lifeboats...so if someone is in trouble, fuk em, cast them adrift! Others believe differently, in BOTH parties.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 653
The War on Women
Posted: 10/27/2012 12:57:13 PM
(sigh)@744...REALLY?

"PC elites who wanted very much to socially engineer a low white birth rate"

WOW! Reading that stunned me...you guys really have to make up your minds, on what the issue is! Is it that people of color use abortion as a form of birth control, or that abortion is against the word of god, or is it now that it is a giant conspiracy concocted by the left to minoritize white people? Hahahahahaha!

I guess you don't believe that it costs more now to raise a family, and many have limited the number of children they have to live within their means and ability to pay for their families? I also guess you don't believe that women, are choosing to have less children, in order to be part of the work force? Or that Latino's are far more religious and catholic many times, so while they may lean democratic, they have more children because of their beliefs?

"in the land their ancestors founded and built"

Hmmmmm, another interesting part of the post! So did they have ships that came here and dumped dirt and rocks over the side, while building said land? I also think the native american indian, may have a thing or two to say about those wonderful ancestors!

Did you read this on David Dukes website? Hahahahaha!

Gawd reading these threads some days, can really shake your faith in humanity!
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 654
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 10/27/2012 1:35:10 PM
WOW! Reading that stunned me...you guys really have to make up your minds, on what the issue is! Is it that people of color use abortion as a form of birth control, or that abortion is against the word of god, or is it now that it is a giant conspiracy concocted by the left to minoritize white people? Hahahahahaha!


Haha, you are actually correct. And the answer isn't race. It is pretty much intelligence and higher grade of gene pools.

The best description of this is the movie 'Idiocracy.' It is simple math. Educated people in stable societies that are not economically challenged have less children. This is a pretty significant feature of welfare beyond 'feeding the hungry'. If you take the very simple statement of 'the meek shall inherit the earth' it could be literally seen as having nothing to do with interpersonal humility but quite simply numbers. Lower educated, poor, and disenfranchised have more children.

Wait... you knew this right? You have at least thought about it right? come one now... it has crossed your mind. Why do we want less poor and uneducated people anyway? ahh crap... here comes that whole 'humanity' thing. here we go again... why did Hitler think a genetically superior race was the way to go? What was the basis of eugenics? Is it morally right or wrong to pursue this course? Do we have a choice? Or, do we just do it quietly and pretend not to know about these things at all? That's it... Pretending is awesome. I have no idea what you are talking about sir. No clue at all. Then comes this whole God concept where you can't lie your way out in the end... ahh crap... okay... the value of human life. It is a messy business.

David Duke has nothing to do with anything. Just try for a bit to actually take the concepts seriously and pretend that maybe there is a country of over 300 million people where mostly everyone is trying to do the right thing. What is the right thing?
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 655
The War on Women
Posted: 10/27/2012 6:09:50 PM
The left, being anti-white, cheers this development, and eagerly looks forward to the day when whites
have absolutely no political power at all, in the land their ancestors founded and built.



David Duke has nothing to do with anything.


Quite frankly, the above quote has everything to do with David Duke and racism...and shows a lack of intelligence...I'm sure I've already read in this thread, posted by some neocon, where black women have the majority of abortions, and yet here we have another neocon stating the liberal whites are diluting the white majority of America by having abortions...really, you guys get your cue cards mixed up or what???


I have no idea what you are talking about sir. No clue at all.


Try reading slowly, it was a clear and concise post...relevant to the topic at hand.


Lower educated, poor, and disenfranchised have more children.


Neocon buzz words for minorities.


Hitler think a genetically superior race was the way to go?


Are you talking about white, aryan, blue eyed, and blond haired ppl's?

Tissue...hmmm...seriously, I'm sure a very few ppl think of an unviable fetus in this manor...and certianly, a young unwed pregnant woman 99.9999999% of the time would not think in this term...(of course the term does deamonize anyone who would use such a term)...my question is, and always has been, why the neocons are so concerned with an unviable fetus and have no compassion or care for the born child....I've repeatedly asked which of you has fostered an unwanted child...adopted an unwanted child...been a frickin big brother/sister...helped a young unwed pregnant woman get the prenatal care she needs...and in all the years I've been here not one of you neocons has raised his/her hand...sad lot of hypocrits.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 656
The War on Women
Posted: 10/27/2012 7:45:10 PM
Some days on here, it's just beyond my capacity to understand what goes through peoples minds. We debate, argue, cajole and spin round and round...some making points that cannot be validated, except when we utilize ideas, ideals, spun from shards of videos posted by...well honestly who can tell? Youtube is NOT, NEVER WILL BE, a valid news source, nor be a prime source of viable information, far too many spun from the farbic of lies and theory. I do enjoy the music videos there though.

Onto business: "What is the right thing?"

Well I hope we can sort that out. First "David Duke has nothing to with anything"...some would say that's wrong and the whole of what is wrong with america. Admittedly he is far off in the extreme...but is that further away from where we are now? Hell we are closer to him, than I would have thought possible in the year 2012. And all because we have a black president.(sigh)

Back on topic: So you are going to play the "eugenics" card...a flawed concept of the long standing 'nature or nuture' argument!

"Pretending is awesome"

Reality is better! There are any number of people of color who developed despite their inferior education. Since it's late and I am tired of arguing semantics with people who are not willing to see their own flawed arguments, I will say it depends on the individual and not the collective peoples of any race, religion or culture.

I was raised by a mother, who had 12 brothers and sisters, children of immigrants from an eastern european country, who fled during the communist revolution. None of my many cousins rose above middle class. The neighborhood I was raised in was lower class, and not condusive to anything better than drug dealing and squalor.

Still I managed to rise above that, achieve a very good career on wall street, that lasted almost 40 years.

Are you going to tell me, it was because of good genes or the fact that I was white?

Frankly I don't care how many people live in this country! Is it more than the states that are now, the formr Soviet Union? Is it more than the peoples of China? Is it more than the peoples of India? These countries are out producing us in viable educated people. So the answer proposed by the republicans is "states rights" about education?

You seem smarter than most on here...at least you don't make comments like one I read "vote romney not commie",
which begs the question AGAIN...is it better to be white and think like that or be informed?

You mean to tell me, that in the late 60's we managed to spend BILLIONS, create technology to put a man on the moon, but we can't figure out a way in the last 50 years, to help people to LEARN and become better?

That because someone was raised in squalor and by parents who dropped out of grade school, we can't figure out how to help them become educated, and better than where they came from, or who they came from? That's HORSESHIT!

You mean that it is EASIER and less COSTLY to do it that way. It doesn't burden the system that way. Outta sight outta mind is better than springing for a few buck...huh? Mean while every nation on EARTH...is striving to improve the ability of their populace. We though, have an issue...ours is our government FOR the people, BY the people has been hijacked by the few who made good, and now want to close the door to advancement behind them, so only THEIR offspring can excel.

"It is a messy business"...no shit!
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 657
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 10/27/2012 8:08:22 PM
@irish

You really have to work pretty hard to twist the context of what I said into what you presented. I really don't know why you would do it other then just to show that you could. THe only other alternative is that your reading comprehension is severally crippled.

You are also exhibiting signs of megalomania. You seem to think you are a superhero. Your call to arms over your compassion is severally misplaced on a singles dating site where the majority of us are actually single. Of that majority we either already have children and are now single or are looking to become not single and in that case the potential for a family would exist and of that sample an even smaller number would seek adoption over natural birth because they are still physically capable. You are not a super hero and your compassion that you most obviously feel for your children is in no way correlated to other people and their lives. Regardless of your reasons for making the choices that you made, your choices do not demean anyone else. You may have done something socially commendable and something to be promoted as the best society has to offer but your sainthood is still pending review.

The generalizations I had about the amount of people adopting were based on this
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/s_seek.pdf

Overall, only 1.1 percent of all women aged 18 to 44 years had
adopted a child, and this included 1.4 percent of ever-married
women. Among adopters, 17 percent of women had never been
married.


You seem to have forgotten that 99% of women are not conservative republicans.

@Oy

My example of Hitler and Eugenics was not about those things specifically but on the ideals of why they came into existence. Just watch the movie Idiocracy. Eventually, the uneducated people outnumber the intelligent by so much that the intelligent people become extinct. It's not a great view but it is a view and one that eugenics deals with. So, when you support programs that 'thin the herd' what is it that you are really supporting? Regardless of your justifications for supporting it... what is the picture beyond the picture you are looking at.

Stage one thinking. What I did had this effect. Think beyond stage one.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 658
The War on Women
Posted: 10/27/2012 8:49:49 PM

You are also exhibiting signs of megalomania. You seem to think you are a superhero. Your call to arms over your compassion is severally misplaced on a singles dating site where the majority of us are actually single. Of that majority we either already have children and are now single or are looking to become not single and in that case the potential for a family would exist and of that sample an even smaller number would seek adoption over natural birth because they are still physically capable. You are not a super hero and your compassion that you most obviously feel for your children is in no way correlated to other people and their lives. Regardless of your reasons for making the choices that you made, your choices do not demean anyone else. You may have done something socially commendable and something to be promoted as the best society has to offer but your sainthood is still pending review.


What a non-sensical rant. Call to arms...WTF are you spouting about.


the amount of people adopting


Well, now let me pontificate...you see the republicants spout off about the sancity of the egg, the sperm, the 1 week old fetus, personhood...yada yada yada...then turn around and try to remove funding for:

planned parenthood, sex education, health insurance for children (repeal of PPACA), school lunches, Pell grants, public education...yada yada yada...

So, if the republicants are so concerned about the life of a fetus then why aren't they concerned about born children....enough to actually do something...and the answer is that they are all talk and no action...they are not part of the solution therefore they are part of the problem.


99% of women are not conservative republicans


If this is true then the war on GOP war on women must be true!!!
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 659
The War on Women
Posted: 10/27/2012 9:06:24 PM
Like it or not, America was founded by dead white guys.
Like it or not, America was BUILT by white people.
You can't refute this.
Sure, slaves helped to build this country, but they were in fact a TINY percentage of the
population.
Most of you haters are anti-white bigots, shameful hate filled anti-white bigots.


LMAO...Says the pot to kettle....

shakes head...the hate in this man's heart is...well, unattractive.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 660
The War on Women
Posted: 10/28/2012 8:02:00 AM
^^^^ It's quite obvious you are just a troll...the forum complaint thread has a delightful post from you and your attitude towards women...



you have to resort to name calling


Oh my...Mr Kettle meet Mr Pot...one look at your posting history shows quite the name caller...you should still to the relationship threads and keep on bashing the women there...
 SSC-SAF
Joined: 5/20/2012
Msg: 661
The War on Women
Posted: 10/28/2012 8:06:03 AM
@Irish...just wondering:

.I've repeatedly asked which of you has fostered an unwanted child...adopted an unwanted child...been a frickin big brother/sister...helped a young unwed pregnant woman get the prenatal care she needs...


Have you personally done any or all of the above?

If not, then how can you point fingers at the other side, or assume that none of them have done any of those things either?
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 662
The War on Women
Posted: 10/28/2012 8:12:18 AM

Have you personally done any or all of the above?

If not, then how can you point fingers at the other side, or assume that none of them have done any of those things either?


Yes, I've actually adopted 2 daughters and was a foster parent to one child.
 SSC-SAF
Joined: 5/20/2012
Msg: 663
The War on Women
Posted: 10/28/2012 1:06:01 PM
Good for you.

Still, you should not assume that others who don't share your views have not done the same.
 59thShadeofGrey
Joined: 9/25/2012
Msg: 664
The War on Women
Posted: 10/28/2012 2:03:27 PM
The majority decision in Roe was written by Justice Harry Blackmun in his first year on the Court, and it is such a notorious turkey that his own law clerks reportedly joked about it as "Harry's Abortion."


Yes, and it was such a turkey that it has only survived for 39 years.... Blackmun, wasn't he a Nixon appointee? In fact, weren't 3 of the 7 justices in support of Roe appointed by the honorable Nixon - and 5 of the 7 by Republican presidents?

Dang, you must really hate the republicans for putting these turkeys on the court. It's like....like....they decided based on the Law instead of on the shrieking cry of 'baby killers!!'.
;-D
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 665
The War on Women
Posted: 10/28/2012 2:41:29 PM

Dang, you must really hate the republicans for putting these turkeys on the court


Views were different back then; there wasn't as much polarity between those on the right & left. Nixon himself was a moderate republican (if not a liberal one). Compare him to the likes what you have today; Gingrich; perry, santorun. Nixon would have been laughed outta the GOP by today's standards.
 59thShadeofGrey
Joined: 9/25/2012
Msg: 666
The War on Women
Posted: 10/28/2012 3:00:41 PM

Nixon would have been laughed outta the GOP by today's standards.


Not sleazy enough??
;-)
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 667
The War on Women
Posted: 10/28/2012 3:23:51 PM
"Not sleazy enough??"

Not that HAS to make you wonder...when republicans sit back and long for the days of tricky d1ck! They really must have come down a ways...
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 668
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 10/28/2012 3:47:48 PM

Yes, and it was such a turkey that it has only survived for 39 yearsp


That says nothing about the quality of the decision. Miranda is just as bad, and we've been stuck with it since 1966. And a great many Supreme Court justices have done things much differently, once they were on the Court, than the Presidents who appointed them expected.



It's like....like....they decided based on the Law instead of on the shrieking cry of 'baby killers!!'.


The usual dopey hyperbole. I doubt you understand the law involved well enough to know if they did, or not. Roe does what most of its defenders would do themselves, if they could--force their personal views on abortion on everyone in the U.S. That suits their desire to control other people, and they couldn't care less if there's any legitimate constitutional authority for it. And yet we're supposed to call these so-called liberals' authoritarian, intolerant approach--which is the very opposite of true liberalism--protecting "the right to choose."
 59thShadeofGrey
Joined: 9/25/2012
Msg: 669
The War on Women
Posted: 10/29/2012 5:03:03 AM

Roe does what most of its defenders would do themselves, if they could--force their personal views on abortion on everyone in the U.S.


Gee, everything you hate and fear is just a bad SC decision, and everything you yourself would be comfortable 'forcing' on everyone else is a good decision. What a delightfully simple-minded world you live in.
;-)
 unYOUsual
Joined: 8/11/2011
Msg: 670
The War on Women
Posted: 10/29/2012 6:04:48 AM
So we are discussing Roe v Wade and this alleged War on Women is not about Abortion?
This "War on Women" misnomer is an attempt by Liberals to cloud the issue and hide behind words like reproductive rights and right to choose etc.. It appears that many legislators want to change abortion laws ..there is no war on women...there is a Humanitarian Effort to protect the Unborn...
 PROTON67
Joined: 4/26/2012
Msg: 671
The War on Women
Posted: 10/29/2012 7:11:08 AM
You better pray to God that He doesn't exist, otherwise some folks have a terrible judgment awaiting them for all of the babies that are now being murdered at a faster rate than Hitler murdered Jews.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > The War on Women