9
   

The GOP's War on Women

 
 
Reply Sun 15 Jul, 2018 07:13 pm
The GOP's war on women is very much real. Don't believe us?
Watch this compilation of prominent Republicans
trashing everything from reproductive rights to equal pay.

Published on Oct 29, 2012
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 9 • Views: 4,675 • Replies: 108

 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2022 04:42 am
Pregnancy From Rape Is 'An Opportunity' For Women, Says Republican Trying To Ban Abortion

Ohio state Rep. Jean Schmidt (R) defended her abortion ban recently, arguing that "just because you have emotional scars doesn’t give you the right to take a life.”

https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/626ad57826000054098a7510.jpeg?cache=BKQqRsNN5k&ops=crop_403_119_3378_2252%2Cscalefit_720_noupscale&format=webp
Ohio state Rep. Jean Schmidt (R) speaks during a news conference on the new Health and
Human Services Department abortion rule on Wednesday, March 21, 2012.


Quote:
Rape is bad, but not bad enough to warrant an abortion, according to one Republican lawmaker from Ohio.

State Rep. Jean Schmidt (R) introduced her anti-abortion measure in front of the Ohio House Government Oversight Committee on Wednesday. The bill, H.B. 598, is a trigger ban that would outlaw all abortions in the state if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that expanded access to abortion nationwide. Similar to other GOP anti-abortion measures flooding red states right now, Schmidt’s trigger ban does not include exceptions for rape or incest.

Schmidt, a former U.S. congresswoman who once infamously discussed abortion with a class of elementary school students, defended her decision to not include these exceptions during committee debate. She argued that a pregnancy from rape is actually a chance for a woman to raise a child, send them to live with a family member or put them up for adoption. That hypothetical child, she argued, could someday cure cancer.

“Rape is a difficult issue and it emotionally scars the individual, all or in part, for the rest of their life ― just as child abuse does. But if a baby is created, it is a human life and whether that mother ends that pregnancy or not the scars will not go away, period,” said Schmidt.

“It is a shame that it happens, but there’s an opportunity for that woman – no matter how young or old she is ― to make a determination about what she’s going to do to help that life be a productive human being. … That child can grow up and be something magnificent, a wonderful family person, cure cancer, etc.,” she continued. “This is not about keeping abortion alive, this is about keeping the mother alive, and just because you have emotional scars doesn’t give you the right to take a life.”

OH Rep. Schmidt (R) on her abortion ban bill: "Rape is a difficult issue... but if a baby is created, it's human life. Whether that mother ends that pregnancy... the scars won't go away. It's a shame it happens, but there's an opportunity for women no matter how young or old..." pic.twitter.com/PVOHWlFvPq
— Heartland Signal (@HeartlandSignal) April 27, 2022


The bill does include exceptions in cases where the pregnant person’s life is at risk, but even the definition of what constitutes a deadly risk was vague and up for interpretation during the committee debate.

Rep. Richard D. Brown (D) responded to Schmidt’s lack of exceptions with his own hypothetical: a 13-year-old girl who becomes pregnant after being raped by a family member.

“You know earlier you said every life is important. The life of the 13-year-old girl in my hypothetical is important. ... You don’t think that’s going to scar that girl? I think this girl has rights every bit as much as this zygote has rights under your bill,” said Brown. “This girl has rights and I don’t believe we can lose sight of the rights of the person who was raped. ... I think you should reconsider and add an abortion exception to this bill.”

Schmidt responded to the question curtly, telling Brown that they “fundamentally disagree.” “Let’s not kill the child because somebody was awful to that other person,” she later added, referring to a fetus and a pregnant 13-year-old child.

The Ohio lawmaker isn’t the only Republican introducing draconian abortion bans with little to no exceptions. Abortion opponents have become galvanized by an upcoming Supreme Court decision that could overturn or gut Roe in a matter of months. Many, like Schmidt, are preparing for a post-Roe world by introducing dozens of anti-abortion bills, the majority of which are actually becoming law.

More and more of these bills are abandoning once-standard language, like rape and incest exceptions. Schmidt’s reasoning for not including these exceptions aligns with the thinking of the larger anti-abortion movement.

“At the end of the day ... you have two individual human beings in the equation, and they are both worthy of our moral attention and our legal protection. That includes the mother and the child,” John Seago, legislative director at Texas Right to Life, a nonprofit organization that opposes abortion, told HuffPost in a conversation for an article on the lack of exceptions in recent abortion measures.

“And so elective abortion doesn’t actually undo the assault. It doesn’t actually undo the crime,” Seago continued. “It only violates further one of the moral agents, one of the individuals involved.”

Both Arizona and Florida recently passed 15-week abortion bans with no exceptions for rape or incest, and Oklahoma just passed a near-total abortion ban with similar lack of exceptions that would make performing an abortion a felony. Even the law currently threatening Roe in front of the Supreme Court — a 2018 Mississippi 15-week ban — has no exceptions for rape or incest.

huffington
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 May, 2022 07:10 am
@hightor,
Totally scary person. If one is against abortion, all one has to do is to not ever get one.
0 Replies
 
Region Philbis
 
  6  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2022 04:24 am

https://iili.io/wWs1KF.jpg
Below viewing threshold (view)
The Anointed
 
  -4  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2022 10:49 pm
@Region Philbis,
Quote:
Because and embryo isn't a living person.


Correct! An embryo, which is a growth in the body of an adult female human being, is not in itself a human being, and neither is a foetus, which, although in its later development, it resembles a human baby, it does not become an individual independent human being of body, soul and mind/spirit, until it is separated from the mother body and takes its first breath.

According to the Christian scriptures, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, it is the independent invisible spirit or mind that develops within the physical womb or physical human body that is the potential child of God.

The physical body with all its senses for gathering the spiritual food [Information] on which the true children of God develop, must return to the elements from which it was created, while the soul [the divine animating principle that pervades the entire universe,] which animates all life forms, in which the gathered information of the bodies senses has been imprinted, must return to God who accepts the righteous spirits as his children, while the unrepentant wicked and unstable minds/spirits are wiped from his soul/lifeforce and those then emptied portions of his immortal soul are given new bodies in the next universal generation, in which to develop new spirits.

According to the Christian scriptures, God does not consider the unborn foetus as a human being, see Exodus 21: 22-25; “If some men are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman so that she loses her unborn foetus, but she is not injured in any other way, the one who hurt her is to be fined whatever amount the woman's husband demands, subject to the approval of the judges. But if the woman herself is injured, the punishment shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

The loss of the woman’s internal growth (Her unborn foetus) is considered to be an injury to the woman and if she is not hurt in any other way, the one who hurt her by causing the miscarriage, is to be fined whatever amount the woman's husband demands, subject to the approval of the judges.

In those days, the miscarriage of any foetus, other than one in the very late stages of gestation, (The period of developing inside the womb between conception and birth.) would have meant the cessation of that growths further development into a fully formed human, and not the death of a human being.
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
The Anointed
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2022 04:10 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
An embryo is alive at the moment of conception. Are you suggesting that a living newly formed embryo is a living HUMAN being?

At what stage do you believe the evolving embryo becomes a viable life form, able to survive outside of the female womb without modern medical technology?

According to a new paper, miscarriages happen a lot more than any of us may realise - even the women having them. The research has found that more than half of successful fertilisations will end in miscarriage. See link suppled.

https://www.sciencealert.com/meta-analysis-finds-majority-of-human-pregnancies-end-in-miscarriage-biorxiv

According to your belief that a foetus at any stage is a living human being, anyone who causes a woman to miscarry should be charged with the murder of a human being or at the very least, manslaughter through negligence, irrellivant as to whether that woman was able to naturally carry her pregnancy to its full term.
The Anointed
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2022 07:28 pm
@The Anointed,
Quote:
According to your belief that a foetus at any stage is a living human being, anyone who causes a woman to miscarry should be charged with the murder of a human being or at the very least, manslaughter through negligence, irrellivant as to whether that woman was able to naturally carry her pregnancy to its full term.



It would seem that the Christian scriptures are correct in revealing that the unborn foetus is not to be considered as a living human being, see Exodus 21: 22-25; “If some men are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman so that she loses her unborn foetus, but she is not injured in any other way, the one who caused her to lose her potential child, is to be fined whatever amount the woman's husband demands, subject to the approval of the judges. But if the woman herself (A HUMAN LIFE) is injured, the punishment shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

What a frightening world it would be, if everyone who ever causes a miscarriage, unintentionally or intentionally, could be charged with murder or manslaughter.

A cancer is an uncontrolled growth and division of abnormal "LIVING" cells.

Surely every woman has the right to decide what can or cannot grow in her body without the fear of being convicted of murder or manslaughter.
Glennn
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2022 04:46 pm
@The Anointed,
Quote:
Surely every woman has the right to decide what can or cannot grow in her body without the fear of being convicted of murder or manslaughter.

They surely do.
The Anointed
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2022 12:35 am
@Glennn,
What is the American court ruling on the termination of a malformed foetus?
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2022 07:32 am
@Glennn,
This was never about the woman.

It is the doctor who is guilty of murder. We never held women accountable to that extent even in like the 1920s or earlier.

This is because of chivalry codes.

This is about doctors covering their crimes.
bulmabriefs144
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2022 07:36 am
@The Anointed,
My nephews were freaking bouncing on my sister-in-law's belly.

I'm pretty sure this caused a miscarriage.

By that logic, little kids could get strung up.
Region Philbis
 
  3  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2022 05:04 pm

https://iili.io/wvyktR.jpg
The Anointed
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2022 02:48 am
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:
This was never about the woman.
It is the doctor who is guilty of murder.


What a wonderful judge you would make? Condemn and execute the hit man, and free the one who hired him to do the job.

Would you rather that that the woman who saw the growing cells within her body, as akin to a cancerous growth, and who is determined at all costs to terminate that, which she considers as an abnormal growth seek an abortion from the old woman down the street with her knitting needles, or have access to a qualified doctor?

Jewish law permits abortion to save the life of the mother - in fact it 'INSISTS' on an abortion if this is necessary to save the mother. If a woman has life-threating difficulty in childbirth, one dismembers the embryo within her, limb by limb, because her life takes precedence over its life.

Does the law of God as given through his prophet Moses, determine what age a foetus must be, which might be lost to a pregnant woman who is involved in a fight with some men, (See Exodus 21: 22;) in order for the one who caused the loss, to be punished with more than a fine?

How many people, who had caused a woman to miscarry, would have been condemned as a murderer and stoned to death, if you were the judge in those days, or even today for that matter.

Anencephaly is a serious birth defect for which there is no known cure, in which, parts of the brain and skull of the forming foetus do not form correctly. Although the greater majority of anencephalic infants die inside the mother’s womb, some do survive for some days after birth, one has even been known to survive for 28 days, and those who do survive beyond birth will more than likely lack the sense of sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch, thereby unable to feel pain.

And you would condemn as a murderess, any woman who terminated that growth after she discovered her foetus had anencephaly, one of the most lethal congenital defects, would you?
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2022 05:50 am
Anyone who believes that a woman seeking an abortion is a murderer should step up and save the fetus by agreeing to take care of the baby once it's born. After all, you wouldn't want to put a baby into the hands of someone who planned to kill it, right?
The Anointed
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2022 06:15 am
@Glennn,
Quote:
Anyone who believes that a woman seeking an abortion is a murderer should step up and save the fetus by agreeing to take care of the baby once it's born. After all, you wouldn't want to put a baby into the hands of someone who planned to kill it, right?


And although I am totally against using abortion as a birth control option, and would willingly adopt any unwanted child in my family system in order to abort the abortion, I will still fight for the right of every woman to chose what can or cannot grow within her body.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2022 07:11 am
@The Anointed,
I can appreciate that.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The GOP's War on Women
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/26/2022 at 07:03:28