Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A brief educational moment concerning later term abortions
#61
(04-11-2019, 02:09 PM)Duchess Wrote: Do I detect sarcasm?

Can men become aroused while they are scared or uncomfortable? That seems very farfetched but men are odd creatures sometimes.

Physically or mentally?

No, it is hardly far fetched. Hell, we get morning wood purely because it is morning.

How do you not know this much about men

Reply
#62
(04-11-2019, 02:09 PM)Duchess Wrote: Do I detect sarcasm?

Can men become aroused while they are scared or uncomfortable? That seems very farfetched but men are odd creatures sometimes.

Maybe?
Reply
#63
(04-10-2019, 03:17 PM)Rootilda Wrote: Why are they so fucking interested in our reproductive rights?  These assholes don't give a shit once the baby's born.  How about a law that castrates a man that impregnates a woman that isn't his wife?

Or just make them sterile?

How about all men contribute to a sperm bank once they can do so and then they get sterilized and when they are ready to have a baby they are allowed access to their sperm.

And then for Fry Guy to ask Duchess how she knows so much about men? Seriously?

That is the madness here-we have men making decsions and laws regarding female bodies-for a second as a man-think about what it would be like for women to be making laws for your body. Or anyone to be making laws for your body. And then to hear that a woman could be put to death for having an abortion in Texas? (as a potential law)

Please tell me how this affects you guys who can just throw your sperm anywhere w/out consequence. And you know what I mean-don't derail this thread to talk about child support and the court system. I am just talking about the responsibility of the woman who is the one who gets pregnant. 

The other thing that is so maddening is the number of men in congress who are making these laws who have encouraged women to have abortions-or who have gotten someone pregnant in secret-etc etc. 
This holier than thou attitude is sickening.
Reply
#64
(04-11-2019, 08:04 PM)MirahM Wrote: And then for Fry Guy to ask Duchess how she knows so much about men? Seriously?

He thinks I don't know much about men at all.  50
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply
#65
(04-11-2019, 08:04 PM)MirahM Wrote:
(04-10-2019, 03:17 PM)Rootilda Wrote: Why are they so fucking interested in our reproductive rights?  These assholes don't give a shit once the baby's born.  How about a law that castrates a man that impregnates a woman that isn't his wife?

Or just make them sterile?

How about all men contribute to a sperm bank once they can do so and then they get sterilized and when they are ready to have a baby they are allowed access to their sperm.

And then for Fry Guy to ask Duchess how she knows so much about men? Seriously?

That is the madness here-we have men making decsions and laws regarding female bodies-for a second as a man-think about what it would be like for women to be making laws for your body. Or anyone to be making laws for your body. And then to hear that a woman could be put to death for having an abortion in Texas? (as a potential law)

Please tell me how this affects you guys who can just throw your sperm anywhere w/out consequence. And you know what I mean-don't derail this thread to talk about child support and the court system. I am just talking about the responsibility of the woman who is the one who gets pregnant. 

The other thing that is so maddening is the number of men in congress who are making these laws who have encouraged women to have abortions-or who have gotten someone pregnant in secret-etc etc. 
This holier than thou attitude is sickening.

Well as to men taking no responsibility - who has been raising my daughter single-handedly through her teens? Where was her Mum? Was I simply a sperm donor? What the fuck are you talking about? Who worked 12 hour shifts for months to make sure her Mother got the best post-natal and prenatal care and the best private hospital? Who worked every bit of overtime and pushed for every commission sale to get the money to allow his wife to stay home as per HER wish? Who paid over his child support entitlements when they split? Who moved 3000kms to get the best schooling for my kids? Who fought attempts to legally push me out of their lives? Who fought for and was granted custody of my daughter after court action? Who has raised my daughter into the beautiful confident lady she has become?

Let me give you the hint. Not her mother. Let me give you another, responsibility is NOT a feminine trait (It is a human trait, some humans are and some aren't. Some of those humans are men and some are women) Who gives a fuck if I was incapable of getting pregnant or not? What the fuck does THAT have to do with responsibility?

No black people can hold an opinion on anything that would be beneficial for white people
No white people can hold an opinion on anything that would be beneficial for black people
No women can hold an opinion on anything that would be beneficial for men
No men can hold an opinion on anything that would be beneficial for women
No disabled people can hold an opinion on anything that would be beneficial for non-disabled people
No non-disabled people can hold an opinion on anything that would be beneficial for disabled people
No adults can hold an opinion on anything that would be beneficial for children
No children can hold an opinion on anything that would be beneficial for adults
No religious can hold an opinion on anything that would be beneficial for non-religious people
No non-religious people can hold an opinion on anything that would be beneficial for religious people
No veterans can hold an opinion on anything that would be beneficial for non-veterans
No non-veterans can hold an opinion on anything that would be beneficial for veterans

I am helping you out pointing out your logic in case any people with any critical thinking were confused about your idiocy.

Now you contention IS White men cannot have an objective/moral/intellectual/reasoned/valuable opinion about ANYTHING to do with reproduction and abortion, right? Because they are not women and hardly decent representatives of parents BECAUSE they are glorified sperm donors. Is that ballpark?

Define the word bigot then look in the mirror and see one.

(04-12-2019, 04:23 AM)Duchess Wrote:
(04-11-2019, 08:04 PM)MirahM Wrote: And then for Fry Guy to ask Duchess how she knows so much about men? Seriously?



He thinks I don't know much about men at all.  50

Does he? Perhaps you should ask him if you do not know and you clearly don't but in respect to whether men need to be emotionally/mentally aroused to be physically aroused, you seem to be VERY lacking and I showed you I was surprised. It seemed very ignorant for a lady of you age and in this era to know know this?
Not saying I am right either. Perhaps this is a big mystery. Right up there with "why some men reward their spouses with flowers and chocolates when their wife/girlfriends behave terribly?"

Reply
#66
I don't give men any more credit for parenting than I do women. It's the responsibility of both parents to care and provide for their children.

It's annoying to me when men whine about and vilify the women they impregnated, and even more pitiful when they go on and on about all they've done to care for the child as if they deserve praise for their sacrifices.    

Some women do the same thing (have a child with someone they later come to loathe and then bitch about it incessantly) and it's equally annoying.
Reply
#67
Anyway, some of the loudest anti-abortion activists and politicians have, for years on end, focused their public statements heavily on late term abortions as if they happen all the time.  

It's a very transparent and misleading strategy for the purpose of riling emotions and garnering support to legally restrict women's right to choose.  

The truth is that late term abortions are a very small percentage of those performed (even in states where there is no time/trimester/viability restriction on abortion).

In my opinion, the current federal laws are a fair compromise.  Federal law forbids states from imposing abortion restrictions up to a certain point.  Restrictions can legally be imposed at such time as the fetus is viable (can survive independently outside the womb).

At present, politicians and activists who consider (or present) themselves as absolutist 'right to life' advocates are trying to redefine 'viability' in attempt to restrict women's right to choose and court the religious right politically.  

Since a heartbeat can be detected much earlier in a pregnancy than the fetus's ability to survive independently outside of the woman's womb, they're pushing the 'heartbeat' laws as a means to restrict women's right to choose substantially.
Reply
#68
Should pregnant women be allowed in the carpool lane?
Reply
#69
(04-12-2019, 11:13 AM)BigMark Wrote: Should pregnant women be allowed in the carpool lane?

No.
Reply
#70
Racist!
Reply
#71
There have been more black abortions in N.Y. than births. Sangers plan is finally working.
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.
Reply
#72
Margaret Sanger is a saint.   Dramaqueen
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply
#73
(04-12-2019, 11:09 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I don't give men any more credit for parenting than I do women. It's the responsibility of both parents to care and provide for their children.

It's annoying to me when men whine about and vilify the women they impregnated, and even more pitiful when they go on and on about all they've done to care for the child as if they deserve praise for their sacrifices.    

Some women do the same thing (have a child with someone they later come to loathe and then bitch about it incessantly) and it's equally annoying.

Your opinions are generally pretty stupid.

What is more to the point is this notion that often society has that men are useless fathers and can't change nappies, remember dates, feed their children and parent, needing the together mother to run the household and look after the children or at worst they are deadbeat Dads. The Mothers are portrayed as not needing the Dad and together, smart, resourceful world beaters.

It actually goes without saying that both parents should be responsible but pushing the men are just sperm donors or deadbeats or useless parents is pretty poisonous.

Some Dads are useless, some Mothers are too. Some Dads are awesome and some Mothers are too.

Yes parents should not demand or expect praise and I do not think anyone here at least would either dispute that or play for that. So God only knows why you mention it?

Reply
#74
(04-12-2019, 11:11 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Anyway, some of the loudest anti-abortion activists and politicians have, for years on end, focused their public statements heavily on late term abortions as if they happen all the time.  

It's a very transparent and misleading strategy for the purpose of riling emotions and garnering support to legally restrict women's right to choose.  

The truth is that late term abortions are a very small percentage of those performed (even in states where there is no time/trimester/viability restriction on abortion).

In my opinion, the current federal laws are a fair compromise.  Federal law forbids states from imposing abortion restrictions up to a certain point.  Restrictions can legally be imposed at such time as the fetus is viable (can survive independently outside the womb).

At present, politicians and activists who consider (or present) themselves as absolutist 'right to life' advocates are trying to redefine 'viability' in attempt to restrict women's right to choose and court the religious right politically.  

Since a heartbeat can be detected much earlier in a pregnancy than the fetus's ability to survive independently outside of the woman's womb, they're pushing the 'heartbeat' laws as a means to restrict women's right to choose substantially.

Are they pushing the women's right to choose? Really? Or are they really pushing to allow lives not to be killed off?
Which are they pushing and what IS their intent? Are you really being honest or are you virtue signaling your personal ideology and pretending to misread the intentions of the people wishing to push this law.

Personally I do not agree with the law but I am not for a moment dishonest enough to pretend they are trying to restrict a woman's right. They are trying to save lives.

It is like a religious person (for sake of an example let's say they are Muslim) not wishing to bake a cake or deliver flowers to a gay wedding. It is a clash of positions. The Folk at the gay wedding would rightly feel discriminated against and the Muslim florist or baker would feel like it goes against their religious conviction. Two clashing rights. Ought the religious person be forced to participate in an activity against their will that goes against everything in their religious beliefs? Ought the gay couple be forced to go elsewhere? You may have a feeling one way or another but it would be the height of dishonest to say that the motivation and intention of the Muslim florist or baker is to be discriminatory or bigoted. They are simply wishing to uphold their religious beliefs.

That is part of the problem with progressives. Dishonest as the day is long. You lie to prop up the Progressive agenda even when you know what you are saying is bullshit. Why you do it I do not know? Perhaps it is a hope that you will trick someone. Perhaps it is that you think no one else sees through it. Perhaps it is habit. Fucking stupid, dishonest and immoral, whatever the reason.

Reply
#75
(04-12-2019, 12:23 PM)Duchess Wrote: Margaret Sanger is a saint.   Dramaqueen

That's the spirit!!! 

[Image: Margaret-Sanger.jpg]



Margret speaking to democrat women.

[Image: eed0e211f58966b4b37a85899b281ac3--choose...o-life.jpg]
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.
Reply
#76
She is a peach! Duchess loves her.

Reply
#77
hah    Duchess is fun.
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.
Reply
#78
The Wire
Cain’s False Attack on Planned Parenthood
By Lori Robertson
Posted on November 1, 2011


Herman Cain has offered an alternate version of history in claiming that Planned Parenthood’s founder wanted to prevent “black babies from being born.” We find no support for that old claim. Cain also states that the organization built 75 percent of its clinics in black communities, but there’s no evidence that was true then. And today, only 9 percent of U.S. abortion clinics are in neighborhoods where half or more of residents are black, according to the most recent statistics.

The GOP presidential candidate made these comments back in March, telling an audience at the conservative Heritage Foundation that “[w]hen Margaret Sanger — check my history — started Planned Parenthood, the objective was to put these centers in primarily black communities so they could help kill black babies before they came into the world.” He called it “planned genocide.”
In an interview on “Face the Nation” on Oct. 30, Cain did not back down from those allegations. Here’s his exchange with host Bob Schieffer:
Quote:Schieffer: … you said that it was not Planned Parenthood, it was really planned genocide because you said Planned Parenthood was trying to put all these centers into the black communities because they wanted to kill black babies —
Herman Cain: Yes.
Scheiffer: — before they were born. Do you still stand by that?
Cain: I still stand by that.
Schieffer: Do you have any proof that that was the objective of Planned Parenthood?
Cain: If people go back and look at the history and look at Margaret Sanger’s own words, that’s exactly where that came from. Look up the history. So if you go back and look up the history — secondly, look at where most of them were built; 75 percent of those facilities were built in the black community — and Margaret Sanger’s own words, she didn’t use the word “genocide,” but she did talk about preventing the increasing number of poor blacks in this country by preventing black babies from being born.
Cain isn’t the first to believe that birth control advocate Margaret Sanger (1879-1966) wanted to stop the birth of black babies. Just do an Internet search and see what happens. Sanger made more than her share of controversial comments. But the quote many point to as evidence that Sanger favored something akin to “genocide” of African Americans has been turned on its head.

Sanger, who was arrested several times in her efforts to bring birth control to women in the United States, set up her first clinic in Brooklyn in 1916. In the late 1930s, she sought to bring clinics to black women in the South, in an effort that was called the “Negro Project.” Sanger wrote in 1939 letters to colleague Clarence James Gamble that she believed the project needed a black physician and black minister to gain the trust of the community:
Quote:Sanger, 1939: The minister’s work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
Sanger says that a minister could debunk the notion, if it arose, that the clinics aimed to “exterminate the Negro population.” She didn’t say that she wanted to “exterminate” the black population. The Margaret Sanger Papers Project at New York University says that this quote has “gone viral on the Internet,” normally out of context, and it “doesn’t reflect the fact that Sanger recognized elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the Negro Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the Jim Crow south, unless clergy and other community leaders spread the word that the Project had a humanitarian aim.”

It goes on to characterize beliefs such as Cain’s as “extremist.” The project says: “No serious scholar and none of the dozens of black leaders who supported Sanger’s work have ever suggested that she tried to reduce the black population or set up black abortion mills, the implication in much of the extremist anti-choice material.”

We asked the Cain campaign for support for his claims, and we have not received a response. His comments already have been debunked by our fact-checking colleagues at the Washington Post, which today gave Cain four Pinocchios, and Politifact, which gave him the “Pants on Fire” designation in March.

Sanger, as we mentioned, was a controversial figure. While she is heralded for her work in making birth control available, and legal, she was also tied to the eugenics movement, which believed the human species could be improved by controlling who reproduced and who didn’t. One essay from Sanger shows she believed birth control advocates and eugenists were working toward a similar goal — “to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit.” But she disagreed with some of the eugenists’ methods.
Quote:Sanger, “Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” Feb. 1919: We who advocate Birth Control, on the other hand, lay all our emphasis upon stopping not only the reproduction of the unfit but upon stopping all reproduction when there is not economic means of providing proper care for those who are born in health. The eugenist also believes that a woman should bear as many healthy children as possible as a duty to the state. …

We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother.
She goes on to talk about the financial benefits of birth control, saying that it “will make a better race,” because a family can better care for a smaller number of children.

Sanger’s early 20th century clinics later grew into what is now Planned Parenthood, and the group is aware that its founder had some views that it doesn’t agree with today. In response to the controversy over Sanger, Veronica Byrd, director of African American media at Planned Parenthood, issued a statement saying:
Quote:Byrd: Planned Parenthood has a long history of condemning racism and opposes discrimination in all forms. Margaret Sanger worked for social and racial justice at a time when segregation was the law of the land. She was invited by African American leaders to help provide health care to women in the African American community and her work was praised by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. For all her positive work, Margaret Sanger made statements some 80 years ago that were wrong then and are wrong now. Those statements have no bearing on the high quality health care Planned Parenthood provides today.
In 1966, Planned Parenthood awarded Martin Luther King Jr. one of its Margaret Sanger Awards, and he praised her in his acceptance speech, delivered by his wife, Coretta Scott King, saying: “At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions.”

75 Percent of Clinics in Black Neighborhoods?

Cain also claimed that “75 percent of [clinics] were built in the black community.” But we found no evidence that that was true in Sanger’s time, and it’s not true today.

Sanger’s first clinic, opened in 1916, was in Brooklyn in a neighborhood called Brownsville, which was 80 percent to 85 percent Jewish in 1910 and 1920, according to author Wendell E. Pritchett’s “Brownsville, Brooklyn: Blacks, Jews & the Changing Face of the Ghetto.” Cathy Moran Hajo writes that the neighborhood was “populated largely by Italians and Eastern European Jews” in “Birth Control on Main Street: Organizing Clinics in the United States, 1916-1939.” She says that Sanger didn’t choose to open her first clinic in Harlem, where infant and mother mortality rates were similar to those of Brownsville.

In fact, early birth control clinics didn’t welcome black women with open arms, Hajo writes: “In the 1920s and early 1930s, African Americans had far more limited access to birth control than did white women. Not only did many clinics discriminate against black women, but the regions with the largest black populations had fewer clinics.”

Sanger opened a clinic in Harlem in 1930, and, as mentioned, the “Negro Project” began in the late 1930s.

That doesn’t support Cain’s implication that Sanger’s “objective was to put these centers in primarily black communities,” or that “75 percent” of clinics were in such neighborhoods. It should also be noted that these early clinics were focused on providing birth control, and Sanger herself warned of the dangers of abortion. “While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization,” she wrote in her 1920 book “Woman and the New Race.”

Cain’s claim also isn’t true today. Tait Sye, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood, told us in an email that “73% of Planned Parenthood health centers are located in rural or medically underserved areas.” Not all of those would be predominately black communities.
Also, the Guttmacher Institute reported this year that 9 percent of abortion clinics in the U.S. are in neighborhoods in which 50 percent or more of the residents are black. That’s according to the group’s “census of all known abortion providers.”
— Lori Robertson
Make Orwell fiction again













Reply
#79
Fuck, you are retarded. Fuck off with your history revisionism.

http://www.nationalblackprolifeunion.com...oject.html

Next you are going to tell us that the Right and Left changed sides.

Reply
#80
I am pretty sure Fry Guy called me a bigot up there.
I am also pretty sure he inserted the word, "White" into my post when I did not use that word to describe the men in congress making laws for womens bodies. Which he did not address at all. (I could say typical of a guy to insert something white....)
Cudos to you Mr Fry Guy for taking care of your daughter. You are 1 person. Sorry the mother is not involved. That is unfortunate.
Now let us get back to what I was addressing in my post.

I really don't want to castrate men (Maybe rapists) or make them sterile (maybe rapists). But I do want to see more laws and more activists that target men, not just women. Not just planned parenthood. Not just places where people go to get abortions.

AND THEN you did not even address the law where a woman could be killed for having an abortion. So there is that.

Thanks for coming.
Reply