How to silence Richard Mourdock

Post Reply New Topic

It's relevant to the post I quoted. Women's rights do not go out the window when they are pregnant, as that poster said. Not under current law anyway. But men's rights do go out the window. This should be brought up any time women act like they are being treated unfairly on the abortion issue.

You reps should just begin psychologically evaluating your candidates/representatives.

I mean , really.

Also, It was probably not a good idea to pander to the religious right. That sort of move tends to drive about everyone out of your target population.

Under the system that people like Mourdock would want to bring in, women's rights would go out of the window.

People like Mourdock are why I won't even consider voting Republican. It's become the party of crazies.

THANK YOU...

The man has a choice,wrap that rascal,then you don't have to worry about child support,but if you were there having fun,unprotected, than you are just as responsible for the child as she is,you were irresponsible too.

Both the man and the woman have a choice - its just that he only has one (not to have sex/use birth control) whereas she has two (not to have sex/use birth control, and, barring that, to abort later on). The idea that the man has no choice, however, is not quite true. He just needs to think ahead a bit more.

The woman has a choice too. There are birth control methods for women as well. Then she wouldn't have to worry about abortion.

The point is, a woman can get away with being irresponsible twice here, both before, and after the fact. Men only have one chance. You get pregnant, you don't want it or don't think you can handle it: you have a choice to kill it. The man has no option to get him out of being responsible for the child, the woman does. The women want it both ways. They want the freedom to get an abortion and duck the responsibility of raising a child, without offering the man the same courtesy. It's like, "Hey, you have no say if this child will come into this world or not, it is totally my decision, but if I do choose to keep it, you will be responsible for it and have no choice in the matter. You won't have the choice I did."

If it's only yours to abort, it's only yours to raise. It's your property, remember? Your responsibility. Leave me out of it like you did when decided to have the abortion or not. Men should be allowed to "abort" their children financially.

Some women can't take the pill or use any form of birth control that involves hormones,if you have had cancer,blood clots, and other health concerns,Not everyone can use a diaphragm,(I can't),wear a rubber if you don't want financial responsibility.It can also go the other way,I know a man that wanted the child,she didn't.And it does seem sad that many men pay child support for a kid all the way across the country that they only see twice a year.I'm for people getting sterilized,male and female.My daughter does not want kids but because of her age,27,no doctor will do it.If she wants a kid later she says she will adopt.But birth control pills also can increase the risk of certain cancers and blood clots,a condom is safer ,not as effective but it's really the only one with no health risks,unless your allergic to them.

One time is an exception. Two times is an unfortunate coincidence . Three times is a pattern. 100 times it means that the republican party has made rape as part of their party platform:

http://www.alternet.org/gender/gops-unb ... diocy-rape

Including abortion.


What if the woman is married and thus not doing birth control. But she gets married and pregnant by rapist. So, let her have an abortion? K?

Should women always take birth control, "just in case" they get raped?

And what about women doing birth control so they can have sex with their partners. But since anything short of ripping your uterus apart is not 100% effective, they get pregnant anyway?

Or how about a change of mind? What if a woman has sex with her husband in her wedding night. But the day after she finds out that the husband was cheating on her? . She got pregnant unfortunately, but due to the divorce, the pregnancy is no longer wanted.

I got 100 more thought experiments for you to have fun with if you manage to answer the ones I already proposed.


It is not illegal to be irresponsible. I'd rather let irresponsible people not to have children.

In case of an unwanted pregnancy, if the woman is responsible though. She will face the responsibility of having an abortion. The irresponsible move would be to go through pregnancy and let the father or the mother's family or the government carry part or all of the burden of taking care of the unwanted child.



BS. The man could just not have had sex.

And / Or get a vasectomy (which can be reversed)



Abort it.

Since you cannot have 50% a baby. Then it is impossible to give 50% of the decision power to both parties. So, one party would have to get 100% of the decision power. Since it is the woman's body that will be subject through risks and the woman's career that will be subject to potential death. It makes sense to give the woman full decision power.

Sounds unfair? Well, it is an unfair world. The solution for the guys in these situations is simple: Don't have sex with women you do not trust. (Because of rape, it would be incredibly stupid to try to reverse this statement - It just does not work this way for women, so much that I feel silly making this clarification, yet previous experience in this forum, makes me completely see it coming)

Maybe there should be a legal figure in which a man (before the child is born) renounces to all parenting rights and duties making a statement that the child is unwanted to him. (Will have to confirm somehow that he used protection or was raped though). But this has no weight on the discussion about whether or not abortion should be legal - It definitely should.

It is unethical and immoral to declare control over women's bodies. Simple as that. Abortion should be legal/stay legal.

I'm not talking about rape, but consensual sex.

Most unwanted pregnancies are the result of two irresponsible parties.

These aren't thought experiments, they are straw men and red herrings.

Nobody said being irresponsible should be a crime. Another straw man. Having an abortion isn't a responsibility, it's ducking the consequences of your actions. Keeping the baby is a responsibility.

The men could just not have sex? So could the women. Why did you leave them out?

No, kill it. It is an organism. An organism by definition is life.

What risks? This isn't the 18th century. Besides, most women get an abortion for social reason, not health reasons. They aren't scared of dying during labor.

You can't own 50% of a child either, but parenting rights and responsibilities are often percentaged out.

You just admitted that it is unfair and your argument is basically reduced to "life isn't fair." I doubt you would accept that lazy justification on other issues of inequality.

Your personal morals are irrelevant.

Practice safe sex,be disease and pregnancy free.

What if the condom is defective? Afterall, they are not 100% effective.

Feel free to judge, but a few years ago, a girl I had been sleeping with said she might be pregnant. I had no interest in this person whatsoever and our temperments were not even close to compatable (she was obsessive and I was aloof) I swear I would've signed my rights to the kid away, plus a legal statement calling me a horrible person as long as I didn't have to spend all my school money on child support. It turned out it was just a scare tactic, but I learned my lesson, just because you can doesn't mean you should.

I still couldn't say whether "Vexcaliber" or "blackelk" are right, I wouldn't have a problem with child support as long as I was done with school, my only work options without school are fast-food and military.

As vile and hateful as the WBC is, their right to free speech is not impaired. They are under court orders to stay a certain distance away from the ceremonies (funerals mostly) of people they revile. The first Amendment protects "hate speech" as long as it does not foment a riot, insurrection or lynching.

U.S. law does not give a rat's patootie for the dignity and hurt feelings of those offended by vile or insulting speech.

ruveyn

Cornflake, seriously stop projecting your faults onto me. I also really don't care why you posted the video.

You seriously want me to post up the video of a Democrat talking about it being okay to kill a baby if said baby hadn't left the hospital yet?


Fact of the matter is that liberals are fighting tooth and nail to defeat Mourdock cause they know he will vote to repeal the Government takeover of 1/6th of the American economy and a ton of idiotic regulations.