A new Political party

[BigRedBuster]

Nice misinterpretation.

I didn't say anything of the sort.

Your words:

Eliminate them thinking they NEED to kill babies.

Your beliefs aren't the problem . . . you just need to change their thinking, right? :lol:

I said MULTIPLE times in my post that I want to eliminate the NEED for abortions. Sorry if your reading comprehension is bad.

 

[BigRedBuster]

They are supporting a church's right to not pay for them in an insurance plan. There is a big difference.

That'd be a nice simple argument but you have the facts wrong.

Please explain.

 

[TGHusker]

The libs made contraception of all things a huge issue in the campaign . . .

Wait a minute . . . you think the Democratic Party chose a fight over contraception?

You know they did. Obama and Sabelius (sp?) HHS secretary demonized the Catholic church for not wanting to be forced to pay for contraceptions under obamacare. At a mock hearing on Feb. 23, Nancy Pelosi invited Fluke to testify in support of the Obama administration’s decision to have insurance companies pay for contraceptives for employees at religious-affiliated institutions. . Darrell Issa who chaired an earlier hearing, said Fluke was not qualified to speak because she was not a member of the clergy. But Fluke was a set up to become the poster girl for Obama in the campaign - the gal who could not afford the $9/mo contraceptives. Then we have ABC moderator setting up Romney with a 'got you' guestion in the debate. Obama's who women's compaign centered around this issue, while Romney pointed out how women lost so many jobs under Obama in comparrison to men.

 

[ZRod]

Your beliefs aren't the problem . . . you just need to change their thinking, right? :lol:

I said MULTIPLE times in my post that I want to eliminate the NEED for abortions. Sorry if your reading comprehension is bad.

Easy now, carl has a point even if it is a bit pedantic. I think he's just pointing out your ethnocentrism. You believe that people think they NEED to kill babies, but in reality sometimes there is a justified medical reason to have an abortion.

You may not have intended to say it but you are basically wanting to suppress people's thoughts, or convert them to your beliefs.

 

[ZRod]

The libs made contraception of all things a huge issue in the campaign . . .

Wait a minute . . . you think the Democratic Party chose a fight over contraception?

You know they did. Obama and Sabelius (sp?) HHS secretary demonized the Catholic church for not wanting to be forced to pay for contraceptions under obamacare. At a mock hearing on Feb. 23, Nancy Pelosi invited Fluke to testify in support of the Obama administration’s decision to have insurance companies pay for contraceptives for employees at religious-affiliated institutions. . Darrell Issa who chaired an earlier hearing, said Fluke was not qualified to speak because she was not a member of the clergy. But Fluke was a set up to become the poster girl for Obama in the campaign - the gal who could not afford the $9/mo contraceptives. Then we have ABC moderator setting up Romney with a 'got you' guestion in the debate. Obama's who women's compaign centered around this issue, while Romney pointed out how women lost so many jobs under Obama in comparrison to men.

You realize not all BC cost $9/month, and there are plenty of other medical uses for BC other than controlling pregnancy. Which is what miss Fluke was testifying to. Why should the church be allowed to deny someone the right to have preventative care simply because they deem it against their religion, when in reality that person isn't using it in violation of the religion's views?

 

[BigRedBuster]

Your beliefs aren't the problem . . . you just need to change their thinking, right? :lol:

I said MULTIPLE times in my post that I want to eliminate the NEED for abortions. Sorry if your reading comprehension is bad.

Easy now, carl has a point even if it is a bit pedantic. I think he's just pointing out your ethnocentrism. You believe that people think they NEED to kill babies, but in reality sometimes there is a justified medical reason to have an abortion.

You may not have intended to say it but you are basically wanting to suppress people's thoughts, or the fancy new word I just learned, proselytize them. Convert them to your beliefs.

BS....Eliminating the need for an abortion is just that....eliminating the need.

I know that isn't going to eliminate every single abortion. I can concede that in the chance there is a threat to the life of the mother, fine...have an abortion. If you have to choose, I am fine if the woman and the doctor decide to save the life of the mother over the child.

That is an extremely small percentage of abortions in this country though. Look at all the rest, figure out why they choose abortions and work with women's groups to eliminate that need for an abortion. That can be through:

a) contraceptives

b) sex education that results in girls being smarter about sex and more people waiting to have sex till they can support a child.

c) holding boys/men accountable to support a child they help create. FYI....I am willing to go one hell of a long ways with this one.

d) education and counseling on adoption options while supporting the mother through the process.

Not one thing that I have said in this thread or listed in this post points to me wanting to control women's bodies.

 

[carlfense]

You know they did. Obama and Sabelius (sp?) HHS secretary demonized the Catholic church for not wanting to be forced to pay for contraceptions under obamacare.

Check your facts.

At a mock hearing on Feb. 23, Nancy Pelosi invited Fluke to testify in support of the Obama administration’s decision to have insurance companies pay for contraceptives for employees at religious-affiliated institutions. . Darrell Issa who chaired an earlier hearing, said Fluke was not qualified to speak because she was not a member of the clergy.

Was that the Fox spin on why Fluke wasn't allowed to testify? That's awesome. :lol:

I assume that the devious Democrats called for Issa's own hearings about contraception? That wasn't the Republicans, right? It was all a Democratic gotcha moment.

But Fluke was a set up to become the poster girl for Obama in the campaign - the gal who could not afford the $9/mo contraceptives.

It's clear that you're far more familiar with the spin than you are with the facts. You should actually listen (or read) Fluke's testimony. It sure sounds like you've never heard it or that you don't understand it.

 

[carlfense]

They are supporting a church's right to not pay for them in an insurance plan. There is a big difference.

That'd be a nice simple argument but you have the facts wrong.

Please explain.

No problem.

Churches are exempt.

 

[carlfense]

Nice misinterpretation.

I didn't say anything of the sort.

Your words:

Eliminate them thinking they NEED to kill babies.

Your beliefs aren't the problem . . . you just need to change their thinking, right? :lol:

I said MULTIPLE times in my post that I want to eliminate the NEED for abortions. Sorry if your reading comprehension is bad.

No . . . you said "Eliminate them thinking they NEED to kill babies." Direct quote.

If you'd like to walk it back and change your argument, fire away. Until then you're saying that you're right and people who disagree with you just need to change (or eliminate) their thinking.

 

[carlfense]

You may not have intended to say it but you are basically wanting to suppress people's thoughts, or convert them to your beliefs.

That's exactly what he said. I suppose that it's possible that he didn't realize it until now.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Nice twist.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Nice misinterpretation.

I didn't say anything of the sort.

Your words:

Eliminate them thinking they NEED to kill babies.

Your beliefs aren't the problem . . . you just need to change their thinking, right? :lol:

I said MULTIPLE times in my post that I want to eliminate the NEED for abortions. Sorry if your reading comprehension is bad.

No . . . you said "Eliminate them thinking they NEED to kill babies." Direct quote.

If you'd like to walk it back and change your argument, fire away. Until then you're saying that you're right and people who disagree with you just need to change (or eliminate) their thinking.

You really need to slow down and read an entire post.

 

[carlfense]

You really need to slow down and read an entire post.

Your words. You sound like you'd like them back.

 

[BigRedBuster]

You sound like you have no argument for anything else that was in my post.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Or, you didn't read it.