water Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Not used to reading words from Politicians that I agree with. Go Bernie!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NottheMama Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Yeah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malachite Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 From my home state! Love Bernie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterRosie Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Would that it took only words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olga Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Bernie Sanders says what he thinks. It's more than I can say for a lot of the spineless Democrats. olga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crtclms Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 I love Bernie. I get "The Bernie Buzz" every week. Gotta love a Socialist (well, I gotta, at any rate). I have one awesome (Boxer) and one reasonable (Feinstein) senator, so I am lucky. But when I was in PA during Santorum's time in office, I wanted to vote for Sanders so badly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMarshall Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Stepping into the fire.. -It is an interesting point of view to claim that because some people who violate a law are injured in doing so, that the law is somehow wrong. Analagous application: Too many people are injured or killed in bank robberies, therefore, we should legalize bank robbery! -I agree that employers (e.g. Catholic Church) should not be allowed to pick and choose health procedure coverage. If they are concerned about upholding religious principles, they need to focus their effort on their parishioners. What if the owner of Joe's Televisions decides that treating heart attacks is against his principles? -Equal pay is slippery slope leading to a quagmire. The danger is that there are activist elements who have sought to create false 'equalities' such as Road Flagman = Billing Clerk, etc. I'm all in favor of "Same Pay" concept. Same pay for the same position, with the same experience, same education/training, and same performance. Change any of those criteria and I believe that can justify a different pay rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
december_brigette Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 comparing bank robberies to abortion is an odd argument. too confused to write more, db Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rae-Rae Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 I'm not exactly left enough to be an actual socialist, but I adore Bernie Sanders. I've never read anything from him I didn't agree with. It takes balls now days to be a Socialist also. The right has successfully demonized the word for the majority of Americans. I support socialist programs though all the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larkspur Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 AM - if criminalizing a medical procedure that women will need or want, and where there are few alternatives that don't require missing work, paying money for prenatal care, or the emotional trauma of giving up an infant, then people can reasonably be expected to circumvent the law. They did before, so what the hell is your point? I'm gay, so thankfully this isn't a choice I'm likely to have to make, but damned if I let my body be made into a fetal incubator against my will! There is something to be said for bodily integrity. Unless you're a woman, you cannot possibly understand how invasive and potentially unpleasant a pregnancy can be. Medically speaking, the cost-benefit of a potentially high risk pregnancy versus a termination leans in favor of termination if that's what the woman wants. Costs us all a lot less in terms of the medical expense and impact of unpaid or underpaid care. As far as equal pay, what do you think we're talking about? That a waitress make the same as a manager? You're on republican crack. Equal pay for equal work means same position, same qualifications. Women make less because some people deem them automatically less qualified, or because employers fear their leaving for maternity or having more health problems, or any number of other ridiculous reasons. (And yet, nobody pays men less for being risk takers, or having dangerous hobbies, which are similar stereotypes.) Same job, same qualifications, same pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirazh Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 FFS. A person with a uterus making a choice about THEIR BODY is NOTHING like stealing money from a financial institution using intimidation and violence. I'd say apples vs. oranges but even that is too similar an analogy -- you, AM, are comparing aloe plants to elm trees. They are both plants, but their similarity ends there, and many features are direct opposites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kodos Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Same job, same qualifications, same pay. And that's been the law for 49 years - the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larkspur Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 True, but there was some legal mess about when discriminatory compensation occurs which necessitated the Ledbetter Act. A completely non-controversial matter that is being fanned to frenzy by tea-party die hards. Just like the Equal Rights Act in 2010 with Rand Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMarshall Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 FFS. A person with a uterus making a choice about THEIR BODY is NOTHING like stealing money from a financial institution using intimidation and violence. I'd say apples vs. oranges but even that is too similar an analogy -- you, AM, are comparing aloe plants to elm trees. They are both plants, but their similarity ends there, and many features are direct opposites. Try advertising a kidney transmplant for sale! When the action affects others, then it is not just about ones self. Society then has an interest and say so about the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vapourware Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 How far can society go with having a say, though? That opens up another slippery slope argument. Pregnancy deeply involves the woman being pregnant. Being her body and all. It is much better for everyone, baby included, if the baby was wanted. I think the mere knowledge that you were not wanted can have long-lasting child, not to mention the effect it can have on the mother. Bottom line: I want to see a child loved than to exist because the government, who are not aware of the intricacies of individual situations, force a woman into having a child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMarshall Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Well of course, the abortion movement has never been 'about love', but hard law, and a womans' desire for absolute control of pregnancy. True love of live would ban abortion, allow babies to live and do what is in their best interest after they are born. ***** One issue not resolve in the present implementation of the law is that fathers have no rights, only resonsibilities. The mother has absolute control of whether a baby will be born. What is almost almost unique in law from this situation is that one person, mother, has total choice and control about another person, the fathers, responsibilities. A fair and equal division of choices, rights and responsibilities would allow the potential father to either veto/approve an abortion, or choose to terminate his parental rights & responsibilities at or before birth. If the mother can choose not to be a mother, why can't the father? a.m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vapourware Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 The physical process of having a baby isn't equal. The woman is the one carrying the child. The woman is the one going through the physical changes that having a child entails. The woman is the one physically giving birth. When males can start carrying children too, then sure, equality re:choice by all means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMarshall Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 The physical process of having a baby isn't equal. The woman is the one carrying the child. The woman is the one going through the physical changes that having a child entails. The woman is the one physically giving birth. When males can start carrying children too, then sure, equality re:choice by all means. Who is carrying the baby has nothing to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMarshall Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Let me clarify the point again. -When matters of the body involve others or the government, one does not have absolute right of control. You absolute right to decide to remove your appendix. You do not have the right to sell your kidney or kill babies, because they involve others including the kidney recipient, the goverment and the father. They all have an interest in the situation. The present law and it's supporters pick and choose convenient points to back their case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vapourware Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Almost everyone are born with an appendix. Only female bodies can carry a child. So yes, to me - if a decision can make such a profound impact on only a proportion of humanity, then that proportion has a LOT to say about it. If equality doesn't exist in a situation, then forcing equality isn't dealing with the issue properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirazh Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 You seem to be arguing from the view that life begins at conception and those of us with uteri are nothing more than incubators. FYI, fetus ≠ baby. The best way to reduce abortion rates is to increase access to higher quality sex education, increase access to birth control and barrier methods, and improve the adoption system. Many persons do include the other biological parent in the choosing process. While I could see some use in allowing the non-birthing parent to choose to sign away parental rights, I hardly see how allowing them to essentially force the birthing parent through pregnancy is even close to fair or right. Who is carrying the fetus has EVERYTHING to do with it. You are, again, speaking as though an up to three month term fetus is a baby and calling abortion killing babies. You argue as though those of us with a uterus arguing over full control of our bodies is not right. Also, as far as I know, one cannot electively remove their appendix in my country -- it only comes up when there is a possible danger to your health. There are many, many reasons people cannot carry a fetus to be a full term baby. Pregnancy and birth can be physically dangerous. It can be psychologically dangerous, from hormonal changes to needing to go off meds. Rape and incest are often cited. Another common group are persons who already have children and cannot afford another (wanna bet the non-birthing parent is left out of that one?) How about psychological phobias of pregnancy? I am trans, I could get pregnant, I take many measures to prevent pregnancy when I must, because while some trans persons do have children I am 100% certain my gender dysphoria would lead me to something very drastic if I could not terminatr the pregnancy. And before you say 'don't have sex,' no. Just no. Pregnancy and birth are not punishments, they should not be treated as such. The concept of that disgusts me. Abortion has been around as long as we have been, seriously. Sometimes life just doesn't work out the way we want or need it to. What really matters is being able to take care of what we have. Again, I could see something along the line of an opt-out for the non-birthing parent if the birth parent wishes to have and keep the baby, though anecdotally I do know personally a few people who have never tried to get anything from the other biological parent of their baby. But anything else is pushing your views about fetus = baby, and that others really should have control over a body like mine in terms of pregnancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirazh Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Also: getting an abortion is also nothing like selling a kidney. If a kidney is causing issues, then doctors come into play, yes. You seem to be acting as though most or the vast majority of pregnancies and births are simple, easy, non-debilitating, etc. You are treating this as a very black and white issue, which it is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.