Republicans War on Women

happy jack wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/opinion/sunday/having-an-abortion-when-no-one-called-me-a-slut.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

No One Called Me a Slut

By SUSAN HEATH
Published: April 14, 2012

.........

This is a story of how it used to be:
It’s 1978, five years after Roe v. Wade. I’m 38, I have four sons — the oldest is 17, the youngest is turning 12. I’m at school, getting a B.A., and I’m loving it.
I’m about two and a half months pregnant.
I don’t want this child.
I have a family, a large family. I love my children with a passion, but I don’t want any more. I know this with absolute certainty. I’ve got other things to do,

.........

I've got other things to do.[/b]

You couldn't even post the ENTIRE sentence,could you troll? Instead you edited it just to to dishonestly ratchet up the shock value.

Quote :

I’ve got other things to do, and I don’t have it in me to be a good enough mother to a fifth child.

Better to bring a child into the world that's not wanted,right? Then when they grow up to be monsters you'll whine about that too.

I thought it was a good article about the good old days.

happy jack wrote:

Any “shock value” is not due to my editing – it is inherent in what she actually said.

Yeah. Well I don't see anything "inherently shocking" in what "she" actually said. The fact that you do find it "inherently shocking" just shows that you have no understanding at all of a woman's right to choose.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

You couldn't even post the ENTIRE sentence,could you troll?

[b]I posted the link, which included the ENTIRE ARTICLE. If even you managed to figure out how to read the entire article, I’m sure that others (or at least those possessing one more digit in their IQ than you have) can figure it out, too.

All your doing now is compounding your dishonesty. In order to try and ratchet up the shock value you deliberately stopped the quote in the middle of the sentence I pointed out. Since you're once again trying to drag this discussion off topic I'm going to hit the snooze button. Enjoy the wet dream where you imagine that you got the best of me in an argument.

Romney: Poor Mothers Should Be Required to Work Outside the Home Still more stunning hypocrisy from the party that owns it

Quote :

After the totally fake controversy about “stay at home moms” drummed up by the Republican Party, this clip of Mitt Romney is pretty devastating. As recently as January of this year, Mitt Romney was singing a very different tune, telling poor women they shouldn’t be allowed to stay at home and care for their children, but instead should be required to work outside the home or lose welfare benefits.

Quote :

“I wanted to increase the work requirement,” said Romney. “I said, for instance, that even if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, ‘Well that’s heartless.’ And I said, ‘No, no, I’m willing to spend more giving day care to allow those parents to go back to work. It’ll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.”

The Republican Party — on the side of stay-at-home mothers, as long as they’re rich.

Mittens said:

Quote :

And I said, ‘No, no, I’m willing to spend more giving day care to allow those parents to go back to work. It’ll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.”

Except that the Ryan budget that Mittens supports guts funding for day care and other programs.
Willard, you lie.

Quote :

-Other Vital Services and Programs: Across the board, the Ryan budget disproportionately cuts programs vital to children and families, including Head Start, child care, public safety, Community Development Block Grants and jobs programs.

http://www.everychildmatters.org/news/457-federal-childrens-watch--the-us-house-passes-a-budget-that-will-harm-childrens-programs

Giving more tax cuts to millionaires, billionaires and billion dollar oil companies, hey no problem.

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

You couldn't even post the ENTIRE sentence,could you troll?

[b]I posted the link, which included the ENTIRE ARTICLE. If even you managed to figure out how to read the entire article, I’m sure that others (or at least those possessing one more digit in their IQ than you have) can figure it out, too.

All your doing now is compounding your dishonesty. In order to try and ratchet up the shock value you deliberately stopped the quote in the middle of the sentence I pointed out. Since you're once again trying to drag this discussion off topic I'm going to hit the snooze button. Enjoy the wet dream where you imagine that you got the best of me in an argument.

Jeez.
The Boredom/Tail-Between-Your-Legs Card has begun to rear its head earlier and earlier in our discussions.
You are becoming incredibly lazy.

Quote :

I’ve got other things to do, and I don’t have it in me to be a good enough mother to a fifth child.

Or maybe she does not have another $227,000 to spend on another kid
like conservatives want to force her to do.
And of course let's not forget that figure does not even include college.
The nerve of this woman.

KarenT wrote:

I thought it was a good article about the good old days.

Me too.
There was no Rush Limbaugh.

edge540 wrote:

KarenT wrote:

I thought it was a good article about the good old days.

Me too.
There was no Rush Limbaugh.

Let's cut Rush a break,Edge. He actually performed a valuable service. After all,it was his bright idea to rant and rave for 3 straight days calling Sandra Fluke a slut. IMO,he was a major,major factor in getting the message out front and center about the Republican party's war on women.

Quote :

yet you bring up, out of the clear blue, the financial aspect of raising a child, a point which the woman does not even touch upon, and which was not even said to be a factor in making her lethal decision.

So what?
Yes that's right, I raised the point that conservatives like you want to force this woman that you call a "cunt" to shell out over $227,000 in raising a child. I see it touched a nerve. Too bad.
I have heard that the financial aspect of raising a child is an important factor to most people that make these decisions.

Artie60438 wrote:

Let's cut Rush a break,Edge. He actually performed a valuable service. After all,it was his bright idea to rant and rave for 3 straight days calling Sandra Fluke a slut. IMO,he was a major,major factor in getting the message out front and center about the Republican party's war on women.

Good point.
Rush, Frothy Rick, Pete Hoekstra, Bob McDonnell, Scott Walker, they're all GOP gifts that keep on giving.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

I have heard that the financial aspect of raising a child is an important factor to most people that make these decisions.

Clearly not for this woman.
She even sent her insurance reimbursement back to Planned Parenthood.
She doesn't come across to me as being a financial hard case.
She killed her baby as a matter of convenience.
Because she had "other things to do".

Maybe not for this woman however it's the number two reason given for getting an abortion. For most people $227,000 is not chump change.

Quote :

This includes perhaps 30% for primarily economic reasons.

--too young/immature/not ready for responsibility - 32%
--economic - 30%

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

So do you call every woman who gets an abortion a "cunt"?

happy jack wrote:

This cunt

I think that tells us all we need to know about how you feel towards women. You're despicable!

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

This cunt

I think that tells us all we need to know about how you feel towards women. You're despicable!

Right wing eloquence right up there with 'slut' and 'prostitute.'






Is there a demand for a video?

edge540 wrote:

For most people $227,000 is not chump change.

For most normal people, $227,000 is not blood money.

edge540 wrote:

So do you call every woman who gets an abortion a "cunt"?

No, only the ones who demonstrate themselves to be incredibly arrogant, and cavalier in spouting their reasons as to why their own precious shallow needs make it OK to kill a baby.

Artie60438 wrote:

I think that tells us all we need to know about how you feel towards women. You're despicable!

No, not by a long shot. It’s just how I feel about the cunt who wrote the article.
And the one whose experience and mindset are outlined in the article below. (I started to count the times she used the pronouns 'I', 'my', 'me', and 'mine' in the article, but it became too tedious.)



http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/magazine/lives-when-one-is-enough.html

LIVES; When One Is Enough

By Amy Richards as told to Amy Barrett
Published: July 18, 2004

Editors' Note Appended

………
Now I'm 34. My boyfriend, Peter, and I have been together three years. I'm old enough to presume that I wasn't going to have an easy time becoming pregnant. I was tired of being on the pill, because it made me moody. Before I went off it, Peter and I talked about what would happen if I became pregnant, and we both agreed that we would have the child.
I found out I was having triplets when I went to my obstetrician. The doctor had just finished telling me I was going to have a low-risk pregnancy. She turned on the sonogram machine. There was a long pause, then she said, ''Are you sure you didn't take fertility drugs?'' I said, ''I'm positive.'' Peter and I were very shocked when she said there were three. ''You know, this changes everything,'' she said. ''You'll have to see a specialist.''
My immediate response was, I cannot have triplets. I was not married; I lived in a five-story walk-up in the East Village; I worked freelance; and I would have to go on bed rest in March. I lecture at colleges, and my biggest months are March and April. I would have to give up my main income for the rest of the year. There was a part of me that was sure I could work around that. But it was a matter of, Do I want to?
Having felt physically fine up to this point, I got on the subway afterward, and all of a sudden, I felt ill. I didn't want to eat anything. What I was going through seemed like a very unnatural experience. On the subway, Peter asked, ''Shouldn't we consider having triplets?'' And I had this adverse reaction: ''This is why they say it's the woman's choice, because you think I could just carry triplets. That's easy for you to say, but I'd have to give up my life.'' Not only would I have to be on bed rest at 20 weeks, I wouldn't be able to fly after 15. I was already at eight weeks. When I found out about the triplets, I felt like: It's not the back of a pickup at 16, but now I'm going to have to move to Staten Island. I'll never leave my house because I'll have to care for these children. I'll have to start shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise. Even in my moments of thinking about having three, I don't think that deep down I was ever considering it.
The specialist called me back at 10 p.m. I had just finished watching a Boston Pops concert at Symphony Hall. As everybody burst into applause, I watched my cellphone vibrating, grabbed it and ran into the lobby. He told me that he does a detailed sonogram before doing a selective reduction to see if one fetus appears to be struggling. The procedure involves a shot of potassium chloride to the heart of the fetus. There are a lot more complications when a woman carries multiples. And so, from the doctor's perspective, it's a matter of trying to save the woman this trauma. After I talked to the specialist, I told Peter, ''That's what I'm going to do.'' He replied, ''What we're going to do.'' He respected what I was going through, but at a certain point, he felt that this was a decision we were making. I agreed.
When we saw the specialist, we found out that I was carrying identical twins and a stand alone. My doctors thought the stand alone was three days older. There was something psychologically comforting about that, since I wanted to have just one. Before the procedure, I was focused on relaxing. But Peter was staring at the sonogram screen thinking: Oh, my gosh, there are three heartbeats. I can't believe we're about to make two disappear. The doctor came in, and then Peter was asked to leave. I said, ''Can Peter stay?'' The doctor said no. I know Peter was offended by that.
Two days after the procedure, smells no longer set me off and I no longer wanted to eat nothing but sour-apple gum. I went on to have a pretty seamless pregnancy. But I had a recurring feeling that this was going to come back and haunt me. Was I going to have a stillbirth or miscarry late in my pregnancy?
I had a boy, and everything is fine. But thinking about becoming pregnant again is terrifying. Am I going to have quintuplets? I would do the same thing if I had triplets again, but if I had twins, I would probably have twins. Then again, I don't know.

Editors' Note: July 28, 2004, Wednesday The Lives column in The Times Magazine on July 18 gave a first-person account of the experience of Amy Richards, who had been pregnant with triplets and decided to abort two of the fetuses. Ms. Richards, who told her story to a freelance Times Magazine contributor, Amy Barrett, discussed her anxiety about having triplets, the procedure to terminate two of the pregnancies and the healthy baby she eventually delivered; she expressed no regret about her decision. The column identified Ms. Richards as a freelancer at the time of her pregnancy but should have also disclosed that she is an abortion rights advocate who has worked with Planned Parenthood, as well as a co-founder of a feminist organization, the Third Wave Foundation, which has financed abortions. That background, which would have shed light on her mind-set, was incorporated in an early draft, but it was omitted when an editor condensed the article.



I'd hate to see her son's face when he is old enough to read this article and finds out what his mother did to his siblings.
And all because she didn't want to start shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise.
Happy Mother's Day, lady.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

So do you call every woman who gets an abortion a "cunt"?

No, only the ones who demonstrate themselves to be incredibly arrogant, and cavalier in spouting their reasons as to why their own precious shallow needs make it OK to kill a baby.

Ah, so what do you call all the other women who get abortions who are not spouting their reasons?

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

I think that tells us all we need to know about how you feel towards women. You're despicable!

[b]No, not by a long shot. It’s just how I feel about the cunt who wrote the article.
And the one whose experience and mindset are outlined in the article below. (I started to count the times she used the pronouns 'I', 'my', 'me', and 'mine' in the article, but it became too tedious.)

The "cunt" as you describe her,is a US citizen that availed herself of a 100% legal medical procedure for the greater good of her family. You don't like abortions? Fine! Don't have one!

You're nothing more than a pathetic garden variety misogynist still living in the 19th century like the rest of the Republican party when it comes to women's issues and your using the term "cunt" clearly proves it. As Scorpion correctly pointed out

Quote :

The fact that you do find it "inherently shocking" just shows that you have no understanding at all of a woman's right to choose.

Artie60438 wrote:

The "cunt" as you describe her,is a US citizen that availed herself of a 100% legal medical procedure for the greater good of her family.

If you count not having large jars of mayonnaise cluttering up her home as being for "the greater good of her family", then yes, you are correct.
(Incidentally, I made a quick and rough count of the twit's use of self-referential pronouns and arrived at approximately 107 uses of the words 'I', 'my', 'me', and 'mine'. Because, after all, she's the important one.)