This man is just dumb as hell why in the hell would you take away birthcontrol and planned parenthood teenagers need to be on it and so do alot of older women. Why take away the a womens right to decide if she wants a baby or not what if she was raped or it was incest. Or maybe the girl is to young for a child think about what this man would do to the women out here we would all be screwed....
Ryan is a the father of the federal "personhood" law which would outlaw all hormonal forms of birth control. So, it's accurate.
If you want to spend your money enabling women to murder their children, pay for their birthcontrol and hope it works, pay for men to have the opportunity to be able to walk away from their responsibilities, then by all means, donate every single red cent you have to make it happen.
But, just stop making the rest of us have to do the same. Put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is for a change.
Didn't Margret Sainger, the founder if planned parenthood state this was the way to control the black population?
You are ignorant of the facts. In her own words:
"On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon"
Every word in the ad is TRUE about Paul Ryan. (Check congressional records)
As Brandon & Cassy succinctly wrote: "so what's the problem?
Maya Angelou said " when someone shows you who they are, believe it"
Mitt Romney in his pick of Paul Ryan as his VP is showing us who he is.
Thirty 8 years ago I knew a woman who was raped at knife-point, and when the police showed up, theywere skilled -and brave - enough to shoot and kill the man who was STILL HOLDING THIS WOMAN AT KNIFE POINT. Her dreadful, horrific experience is true, and real, and thousands of women here and around the world have experienced this atrocity. (Read about the Bosnian war). Paul Ryan would force the woman I knew
to have the baby produced in that horror.
So,what's the problem with the ad???????????????????????????????????????????????
I know a woman who was raped at gun point, kept her baby and has a fantastic, healthy relationship with him.
Your point is mute, besides the fact that research shows that women who do not murder their innocent baby fair better then those who do.
Further, much to my distaste, it's Romney's policies that would be in effect if he could even change the abortion laws, as the Mormon religion does not prohibit abortion in the case of rape.
But, I do so enjoy you liberals showing your ignorance as often as possible.
89 comments, all of which fail to address the issue at hand, as did the original post.
Ryan cosponsored H.R. 212, which, unless it were amended, outlaws most forms of birth control pill, which work in part by making the lining of the uterus inhospitable to a fertilized egg..
Is the issue that the pill is not a "common" form of birth control?
RS, I suggested that the debates will be rigged and that Obama and Biden will be fed the questions they will be asked. I also suggest that one of the questions for Ryan will be, how do you think you will be able to ban contraception and is it really fair to force women to have babies..............just watch. I GARUUUNTEE.
Both Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan have expressed their support for laws that confer constitutional and legal rights of "personhood" at the point of fertilization . . . many common forms of birth control (IUDs, for example) might have a post-fertilization effect. What is untrue about the claim?
If you can't afford birth control then you shouldn't be having sex. BC is cheap and readily available everywhere. Abstinence is even cheaper since it is free.
Lily Ledbetter Act was to extend window longer in order to sue.
Scoop is right this ad is unconscionable. If America doesn't stand up and say this is to far then we are doomed.
Ryan is so innocent looking even an advertisement to demonize him will have no effect. Ok so on Saturday we were told that the dems were so happy and anxious to have Ryan on the ticket because now they can tell old people that he is going to take away their medicare. Well, that must not be working because in the process of telling people that Ryan was going to take away medicare Obama is now forced to talk about the economy and Medicare. However, today we get more scare tactics that little ole Paul Ryan hates women and he wants to take away your birth control. This is so ridiculous!
Yup, If you're a praticing Roman Catholic, be prepared for the hdious lie that you're "going to take away peoples birth control."
Saw that same tactic first against Santorum, now against Ryan... How low they can go....
The only thing the administration forgot to add to the list is that Ryan would make sure alleys are clean so that women could perform their own abortions with hangers. What a bunch of wanker hacks.
Yeah, prudent investors will be buying stock in hanger mfg. companies. Cha-ching!
A great addition to one's portfoli O'
One can use them for so many things: pop the lock in a car, fish wires in a house or a boat, hang clothes, hold on a car bumper or tailpipe, or perform you know whats. They are as versatile as duct tape down South.
Typical White House press corps question and answer session with Obama (if he ever has one again):
What is your solution to unemployment? - Romney's company, Bain Capital, killed millions of people.
What will you do about our excessive debt? - Romney loves the rich 1%ers, and wants to give them all your money.
How will you secure our borders? - Ryan wants to ban birth control, thereby forcing 20 kids on each of you.
What solutions do you have to stop Iran from getting Nukes? - Israel is mean to poor, innocent Arab nations. We need to help our Muslim friends.
How will you handle Social Security and Medicare going broke? - Ryan wants to throw Grandma over the cliff. You all have Grandmas, don't you?
Will you raise taxes on the middle class? - Did I mention Romney is rich, with offshore accounts?
How will you restore America to it's former greatness? - I inherited the worst economy ever from Bush. You're lucky to be alive, thanks only to me.
Will you ever answer our questions with straightforward answers? - Did I mention I killed bin Laden? Thank you. Thank you all. You've been a great audience. Don't forget to vote for me and vote often. Goodnight.
With a few minor edits for the Tea Party, Republicans, whites folks, Christians and Sarah Palin, this could be the campaign poster they build for that....
Hey, I just read that the "Justice" department might investigate Romney for securities fraud. In other words, Holder, already guilty of contempt of congress, is going to investigate Romney. I'll bet he'll do a bang up job of that, even though he is "incapable" of doing anything about investigating Fast and Furious.
If there is any shame anywhere in the world, could someone please locate it, grab it, and dump it all over Holder's head? These folks are flesh-eating bacteria, you know that?!
When Romney wins, I hope he nails these bastards to the wall and let's them hang there, on display, as a deterrent to others.
I was in a good mood too. I hope this is a sick rumor. If someone can substantiate it, I'd appreciate it.
P.S. OK, it appears to be someone suggesting that it very well COULD happen. Sorry :-)
Smart elephants, knowing this is coming could have the ad ready..
"What does a desperate president do when losing relection?
"Have his top cop trump charges against his political opponent"
"I am Mitt Romeny and I approve this message"
gonna take your birf controls away, all you sluts!
gonna kick all you old peoples into da streets, to die wifout medicashuns!
gonna stop spending money on edumicashuns and put little kidz to work in facterys!
gonna make all ur waters and airs real dirty so we can gets more richer!
We need to run an ad, "Obama wants to take away your rights.."
Would force you to abort x number of children.
Will take away all your income and give a little back.
Don't worry about Medicare because under obamacare you won't make it to 65.
An individual who advocated free market laissez faire capitalism would do the following:
"Ban common forms of birth control" - NO.
"Eliminate a woman's right to choose / have an abortion" - NO.
"End funding for planned parenthood" - YES.
"Abolish the Lilly Ledbetter fair pay act" - YES.
They'd answer this way because they'd know that the government's only legitimate role is to protect the individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Banning birth control is a violation of individual rights, just as banning abortion is a violation of individual rights.
I agree with all of your points except one. I can't think of a greater violation of individual rights than to be killed after you are conceived but before you are born. It's the first inalienable right in the DOI. If you disagree, please tell me at which point you think the child gets its individual rights. I've even heard speculation that newborns are fair game for murder. Partial birth abortion? 8 months? 7 months? It's a slippery slope to make it anything less than conception. How about making people act responsibly for their actions and avoid conceiving if they don't want to get pregnant?
I'm absolutely no fan of government regulation but someone has to look out for the rights of the unborn. It's not just a moral issue, it's also a legal issue that goes back to the question that I posed above.
I like the current system of "viability". If it can survive being removed from the womb, then it's an individual in its own right, but if it can't survive being removed from the womb, then it's not an individual. It would be a violation of the individual rights of the woman if she was forced to keep it within her against her will. I think biologists are pretty clear about the time frame at which a foetus becomes viable for survival outside the womb.
But you know, if you can come up with some technology that allows foetuses to develop fully outside the womb even earlier than our current technology allows, then go market it.
What astounds me is how the 'pro-life' side doesn't actually consider what their "ban abortion all the way back to conception" policy would actually require. I mean, imagine it: A woman gets pregnant and wants to have an abortion. She's willing to do whatever it takes to get those cells/foetus out of her body (home-made chemicals, metal hangars, etc) - So what you'd have to do is stick a gun to her face, strap her to a bed for the 9 or so months, sod all her work commitments, sod her social life, sod her life completely, she is now just under total government control, and then at 9 months force her to give birth without resistance, because she could complicate things, so you'd have to sedate her, cut her open, and then take the foetus (now a baby) out of the woman's womb.... and then finally let the woman go. That's pretty fucking tyrannical and disgusting, if you ask me.
A child in development doesn't stop developing after being full term in the uterus, the child continues to develop sometimes as long as 23 years post delivery.
You are evil to the core. Just wanted to let you know that, you have a black heart and have been brainwashed by lies unfathomable in years past.
The children I carried were never my tonsils or appendix, you sick twisted evil pos.
1) even if it dies, it's still an individual, just a dead one.
2) People die all the time. It has nothing to do with individuality.
3) You dodged the issue once again.
Don't bother answering more points. You're not answering anything, you're just spewing. The argument of viability and individuality are two seperate issues, but you've combined them to make your lame point.
You're better off talking to the mirror, because that's the only entity that believes you.
1. "There is no intrinsic or natural premise that an entity is an individual only after it's viable. That's your definition and your own creation. It isn't a natural law."
I said that an individual is a separate entity; in this case, separated from the host. That may be my own definition, but I think it's logical, since earlier stages of development are not separate entities; they're utterly dependent on the host. I would consider that a natural law, since it is in accordance with the laws of nature that are clear on this fact: Foetuses cannot survive (with our current level of technology) before they've reached viability.
But let's put your theory to the test: If it is an individual before biologists consider it viable, then remove it from the host (when the host does not want it) and see if it survives. You can help it all you want when it's out, of course.
2. "It doesn't make them non-individuals because you say they're not viable."
It's not me saying that. It's nature saying that. Nature says that they're utterly dependenton the host, that they're not an 'individual entity', and that if you try to make force them to become 'individual entities' (by removing them), then they will die as nature has decreed.
3. "By your standards, if a woman tires of a child at ten, she can then kill it for her own convenience"
Erm no, where did you get such an idea from? I've stated that when the foetus has reached viability then it is an individual, since it can survive as an individual entity.
I'll answer more points later on.
There is no intrinsic or natural premise that an entity is an individual only after it's viable. That's your definition and your own creation. It isn't a natural law. You make the assumption, then you make your points because you say the assumption is fact.
Many people don't survive all through the range of life. Babies can't survive on their own. Some people need assistance all through their lives. It doesn't make them non-individuals because you say they're not viable. Your assumption doesn't hold water. It merely excuses your killing desires.
By your standards, if a woman tires of a child at ten, she can then kill it for her own convenience. And if you say, no, it's no longer a part of her body, well I tell you it stopped being a part of her body at conception. You just don't understand that or want to admit it.
"you say that the woman should be forced by the government, at the point of a gun, strap her to a bed for 9 months, until it is fully grown and birthed' - k
No, you said that. I did not say that at all. It was just a meme you invented in reply to someone else. You see how you concoct a fantasy (much like your viable survivability meme) and then declare it a fact? A child in her womb is a responsibility just as a child out of her womb is. There are laws of society that stop her from killing that 10 year old (doesn't stop her from doing it all the time, but they are there) and there can also be laws that stop her from killing it before birth. It's not that difficult to understand if you have morals. But then, you will revert back to your ever repetitive meme (viable survivability), won't you.
Quite frankly, someone who feels it's immoral, tyrannical, and evil to not want to kill our children has a moral problem of their own that they must come to terms with. You have chosen to hide behind 'viable survivability' as an excuse. I realize you must find whatever reason you can stomach to excuse your reasoning, but it's obvious from the lame way you do it that there is a disconnect between your reasoning and reality. Sorry to see that.
You completely missed the point, of course. You continually say it's an individual after it's survivability is viable and therefore viability is equal to individuality. It's getting really old.
Try this - If I put a gun to your head and pull the trigger (using just an example, mind you), we watch to see if you can survive. If you do, then you have viable survivability, you must be an individual, and what I did was wrong. If you don't survive, then you didn't have viable survivability, you must not have been an individual, and I therefore did nothing wrong.
That example is exactly what you're saying about a human being. It sounds ridiculous as a viable excuse for killing, and so does yours. Period.
You won't understand it, you never have, and you will come back with your same, lame excuse for killing over and over again, so I'm done. respond if you want to, but if it's the same rhetoric, don't waste your time.
Quote: "You will always fall back on viable survivability as a definition of individual, so therefore you will never be able to truly define what an individual is (because your premise is your definition)"
It's not a separate entity (an individual) until it is separated from the host (the woman). Go right ahead, pull out that pre-viable foetus, let's see it try and survive separately from the woman - Oh wait, it can't, because it's not an individual; it's completely and utterly dependent on that woman, until someone invents technology that can replace the woman's body.
What this really boils down to is whether women should have the choice to remove things from their body that they do not want there. You say they shouldn't be allowed to; you say that the woman should be forced by the government, at the point of a gun, strap her to a bed for 9 months, until it is fully grown and birthed. Sod the woman's individual rights, right? She was 'irresponsible', according to your own personal standards, so therefore she must pay the price of her 'irresponsibility' by having government stick a gun to her head and strap her to a bed for 9 months, and suffer who knows what kind of trauma and suffering as a result. I just cannot abide by that sickeningly disgusting and tyrannical view of yours. Quite frankly, the pro-life view is immoral, if not downright evil.
Quote: "If two people conceive a child, the mother wants it and the father doesn't, the mother gets to keep it. The father again has no say and you'd call him a mysogynistic, sexist a$$ if he demands an abortion."
If the woman wants to conceive a child, but the man doesn't, then it's not up to the man, since until "viability" the organism is part of the woman's body, and her body is her property, and after "viability" the organism becomes an individual in its own right, and the man cannot violate its individual rights by demanding that it be destroyed.
If the woman does not want to conceive a child, but the man does want her to, then again, it's not up to the man, since until "viability" the organism is yet again part of the woman's body, and her body is her property; she can choose to destroy/harm her body. If the woman decides she does not want to conceive the child after "viability", then it's too late for her because the organism has become an individual with individual rights, so she cannot destroy it; she can only choose to have it removed and for it to go on to live its own life separate from her.
I'll get to your other points later.
'It's part of the woman's body, until it becomes viable outside of said body, and just like tonsils or an appendix - It can be removed' - k
Unlike tonsils or an appendix, it is a seperate human being. It does not have the DNA of it's mother and does not have the DNA of its father. It has its own unique individual DNA, different from every other creature in the Universe. And it has that seperate, individual feature from the moment of conception. It doesn't gain it later, when its survival might be more viable than earlier.
And you can't claim it's just like a tumor or cancer cell, because a cancer cell is not a human being. Because we haven't yet figured out how to help it survive in its early stages doesn't make it any less of a human being. It just makes us imperfect.
Yes, it is a quandry about the woman who truly doesn't want the child. But, remember, there are three people involved here. If two people conceive a child, the mother doesn't want it and the father does, then the mother gets an abortion. The father has no say. To you that's okay.
If two people conceive a child, the mother wants it and the father doesn't, the mother gets to keep it. The father again has no say and you'd call him a mysogynistic, sexist a$$ if he demands an abortion.
In both cases, the child has no say, gets no vote and is the one who suffers the ultimate price for the other two having no sense of responsibility.
I realize that you rest your entire case on the circular reasoning of 'viable survivability'. You claim it's an individual only if it can live outside the womb and you then try to define what an individual is by starting at that point.
I call that 'plausable deniability' because you are fooling only yourself in that regard. The only difference between a fetus the day before birth and a baby the day after is what it breathes, not who or what it is.
You will always fall back on viable survivability as a definition of individual, so therefore you will never be able to truly define what an individual is (because your premise is your definition).
People like you will always like abortion and people like me will always hate killing our children. That fact remains true and your singular circular reasoning just gets old and stale time and time again.
Let's agree to disagree on the pro-choice, pro-life argument. I know that you can't change my mind and you are the only one that can likely change yours.
Let's agree to agree that tyranny is wrong and must be fought tirelessly.
Well the thing is that if you say it's "from conception", then what do you do with women who no longer want the organism within their body? You end up in the scenario of having to stick a gun to their head, strap them to a bed for 9 months, and all that evil tyrannical stuff.
If it's "from viability", then when a woman no longer wants the organism within her body, then it can be removed and actually survive as an individual human being, minus any tyranny, and the woman's individual rights are upheld.
The "from conception" crowd really need to realize what the practical application would be if their idea was put into practice, because when it is then it leads to some very evil and very tyrannical outcomes, and there is NO way around that. Do you think just passing a law against abortion will stop abortion? - I could cite you countless examples of how ineffectual laws are at stopping human activity, especially in cases where individuals really believe that they should have the freedom to do whatever it is.
Quite frankly, the fact that you can't remove the earlier stages of growth and have it survive as an individual human being, should be all the evidence you need to see that said stages of growth do not make an "individual". I would argue that it's just "a part of the woman's body"... until it becomes viable outside of said body. It's part of the woman's body, until it becomes viable outside of said body, and just like tonsils or an appendix - It can be removed.
I could care less what someone else does, UNLESS it curtails the rights of someone else. There are limits. One can't just walk down the street and punch a stranger in the face. Would you argue that that is Freedom? Of course not. The only thing we disagree about is the point at which a person has rights. I think it's conception and you think it's some point several months down the line.
I am merely standing up for someone that has absolutely no "choice" whatsoever.
1. "Getting an abortion has become as routine as getting a cavity filled. I'm sure that you'd agree that that is not right either"
I don't see anything wrong with it, so long as it's done before the point of viability. It's something called "freedom".
2. "Viability is a function of technology. Babies that are born well under one pound can survive now. Should the viability point change over time?"
3. "I don't like the scenario that you painted either, but I just can't ignore the rights of the unborn child"
It doesn't even have individual rights until it's viable for survival outside of the womb. So what rights are being ignored exactly?
4. "If abortions weren't such as easily secured, perhaps young women, and men, would act more responsibly. By more responsibly, I mean less sexual activity and more precautions"
I don't see what business it is of yours how responsible people are with their own lives. You don't own their lives. So long as they're not violating your individual rights, then you should have no concern whatsoever. Let people make their mistakes and successes; don't meddle in their lives of other individuals.
I never said that individual rights were from government. I insist that individual rights are necessitated by our nature as a rational being. It's a falsehood to claim that the only sources are "from god" or "from government".
dear cousin kordane, psalm 139 vs 13 "for you created my inmost being; you knot me together in my mother's womb". psalm 119 vs 73 "Your hands made me and formed me". Jefferson 1776 declaration of independence our rights of Life, Liberty, and persuit of happiness are not from a government, rather from God
Granted, it's a very complicated issue. The other side to the "forced carry to term" dilemma is the current state of affairs. Abortion has become de facto birth control. If I remember correctly, there have been something like 50 million abortions since Rowe v. Wade. Many young people especially have absolutely no sense of responsibility for their actions because there is always a relatively easy out. I've heard young girls speaking candidly about abortion openly on the NYC subway system. Getting an abortion has become as routine as getting a cavity filled. I'm sure that you'd agree that that is not right either.
Viability is a function of technology. Babies that are born well under one pound can survive now. Should the viability point change over time?
The crux of the problem is that the rights of two people are involved. That point is largely lost on the pro-choice crowd.
As a libertarian-leaning conservative, honestly, I don't like the scenario that you painted either, but I just can't ignore the rights of the unborn child.
If abortions weren't such as easily secured, perhaps young women, and men, would act more responsibly. By more responsibly, I mean less sexual activity and more precautions. If those fail, there are thousands of couples that can't conceive that would absolutely love to adopt their babies.
I understand the pro-choice argument. I used to be pro-choice. I changed when my two daughters were born and I realized that they were much, much more than merely a choice.
First of all, why not try to clean your language up.
Secondly, there are many people from cradle to grave that can't survive without outside help, at every level of life. Let's start to narrow down who we can legally kill and get them off our responsibility list. Perhaps, we can pass laws to allow only those 21 to 51 to have rights. The very young and the very old are such a burden to our gay and carefree lives. If that child under 10 isn't developing into a perfect child, it should be gotten rid of. If that parent has just gotten too frail to keep working, we should put them out of our misery.
Life is life and that life begins at conception. If you have the desire to do things that create a child, you should have the responsibility to take care of that child or seek out someone who will. I think every person that wants abortion should be forced to hold a newborn baby before making that decision.
This argument about being able to survive on their own outside the womb is a stale and retarded argument. Individuality has nothing to do with survivability. Take all children under the age of 14, cut their arm off and ask if they can survive on their own without medical help. That would define them as individuals, right? Bull hockey.
Find a better argument for killing our children.
A newborn baby can't survive on its own either so are those in your throw away column. The argument that its OK to destroy a life because it can't survive out of the womb is ridiculous.
You have zero grasp of common sense. Women would resort to metal hangers? Idiot. How's about this crazy idea? If you don't want to clean your "cells" out with a hanger then have responsible sex!!! Put the #ick down!! Problem solved except for your total lack intelligence. I would rather have abortions of existing adults that decide it better to murder an innocent than practice responsibility.