Indiana senate candidate Richard Murdock

[Crown@club]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There is no chance Roe vs Wade gets overturned regardless of who is elected. It is simply a Democratic scare tactic.

Originally Posted by Riot

The time for people to be "up in arms" about men trying to take women's rights away is right now - during the electoral process. That's why Mourdock was asked at the rally about his thoughts on women's rights and abortion - so people can choose to never, ever for for him, an American Taliban that wants to introduce his religious law into our government.

Democracy takes work. These people are very dangerous. Again - any woman who votes for a candidate that looks you in the face and says he wants to take away your current freedoms and rights - he's not joking. He's dead serious, no matter how extreme and silly you think he sounds. Run for your life. Vote and defend your freedom.

Problem is Joe Donnelly is against abortion also.....but then he could flip-flop like he always does anyways.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Crown@club

Problem is Joe Donnelly is against abortion also.....but then he could flip-flop like he always does anyways.

Good point. I totally forgot that both candidates in that race are pro-life.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There is no chance Roe vs Wade gets overturned regardless of who is elected. It is simply a Democratic scare tactic.

You haven't been following abortion rights, or lack of them, in state legislatures, then. Abortion is already, for all intents and purposes, illegal in some states, because of restrictions passed on clinics' operations. And yet women's rights groups aren't pursuing cases against them- not because they don't feel the laws are violating Roe v. Wade, but because they are terrified of Roe v. Wade being overturned. In addition, several states have already passed laws that would make abortion immediately illegal in the event Roe v. Wade is overturned, so they've already prepared for it.

And of course, it's not really about abortion; it's about women's freedom, as the fight over whether a company has more religious rights than an individual when it comes to women's contraception, shows. Women who do not have control over their reproductive lives are not free. They aren't. I had a wanted pregnancy, and it still takes over your life and body, and, in my case, was in danger of killing me at the end- I had to be induced early because my blood pressure hit seizure levels and I was at risk of stroke. A friend of mine did have a stroke after having a baby. Another died last year on the operating table delivering twins. Pregnancy and childbirth are f*cking dangerous.

And these were all wanted pregnancies, and, in the case of my friends, everything was fine, right up until delivery, so there was no sense that their lives or health were at risk. The GOP proposes forcing women to risk their lives and health, in fact, give them up, for pregnancies they don't want. And that will leave thousands of children without mothers, because the majority of women seeking abortion ALREADY HAVE AT LEAST ONE CHILD. It's not all teenagers who didn't use condoms. One out of three women have an abortion before the age of 45. Most, if not all of us know someone who has had one.

This isn't a scare tactic; this is a genuine possibility and it's really scary. Women will die. And it's right there in the national GOP platform- no abortion under any circumstances. That's what they support. Look it up.

This is what happens when religious zealots get into government. Freedom goes away.

The Democrats are using this as a scare tactic because women should be scared.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'm not saying that I agree with the Senate candidate but let me ask those of you that believe in God a question. Does anything ever happen that God does not intend to happen?

For the record, if I had a daughter and she was raped (by a stranger, not a date rape), I would definitely advice her to have an abortion.

What difference would it make if you knew the guy? This is hopelessly retarded.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

You haven't been following abortion rights, or lack of them, in state legislatures, then. Abortion is already, for all intents and purposes, illegal in some states, because of restrictions passed on clinics' operations. And yet women's rights groups aren't pursuing cases against them- not because they don't feel the laws are violating Roe v. Wade, but because they are terrified of Roe v. Wade being overturned. In addition, several states have already passed laws that would make abortion immediately illegal in the event Roe v. Wade is overturned, so they've already prepared for it.

And of course, it's not really about abortion; it's about women's freedom, as the fight over whether a company has more religious rights than an individual when it comes to women's contraception, shows. Women who do not have control over their reproductive lives are not free. They aren't. I had a wanted pregnancy, and it still takes over your life and body, and, in my case, was in danger of killing me at the end- I had to be induced early because my blood pressure hit seizure levels and I was at risk of stroke. A friend of mine did have a stroke after having a baby. Another died last year on the operating table delivering twins. Pregnancy and childbirth are f*cking dangerous.

And these were all wanted pregnancies, and, in the case of my friends, everything was fine, right up until delivery, so there was no sense that their lives or health were at risk. The GOP proposes forcing women to risk their lives and health, in fact, give them up, for pregnancies they don't want. And that will leave thousands of children without mothers, because the majority of women seeking abortion ALREADY HAVE AT LEAST ONE CHILD. It's not all teenagers who didn't use condoms. One out of three women have an abortion before the age of 45. Most, if not all of us know someone who has had one.

This isn't a scare tactic; this is a genuine possibility and it's really scary. Women will die. And it's right there in the national GOP platform- no abortion under any circumstances. That's what they support. Look it up.

This is what happens when religious zealots get into government. Freedom goes away.

The Democrats are using this as a scare tactic because women should be scared.

i read that over 100 bills were introduced by republicans over the country this year, attempting to put limits on reproductive rights. it's scary when you read and hear what some of the people in positions to force change have to say.

[Patrick333]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i read that over 100 bills were introduced by republicans over the country this year, attempting to put limits on reproductive rights. it's scary when you read and hear what some of the people in positions to force change have to say.

I've never seen that. Do you have a link for that article?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Patrick333

I've never seen that. Do you have a link for that article?

i've seen in various articles from various sources how many new bills have been introduced. could have been slate magazine, or msnbc, or yahoo news...who know?


but here's a link to this one. doesn't say over 100 for this year, but over 1000 since 2010.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/21/opinio...ion/index.html


But don't think for a second that social issues -- particularly abortion -- are not in the GOP's sights. Since the tea party helped pull the GOP back into power in 2010 -- under the guise of controlling government spending -- close to 1,000 anti-abortion bills have been introduced across the country.


if you click on the link in that excerpt, it takes you to the Guttmacher institue page, but from 2011.

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecente...ends12012.html

the above is more current.


this is an excerpt from wikipedia (which references the guttmacher institute):

2011 and 2012 have seen an unprecedented rise in the passage of provisions related to women's health and reproductive rights.[32][33] State legislatures across the United States introduced 1100 provisions restricting women's reproductive rights in 2011.[32][34] The first quarter of 2012 saw an additional 944 provisions introduced in state legislatures, half of which would restrict access to abortion.

in the u.s. congress alone, since 2011, 54 bills were introduced by republicans attempting to restrict abortion rights.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...ed-on-abortion

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

What difference would it make if you knew the guy? This is hopelessly retarded.

Let me be a little more clear. If a woman is raped, I would assume that she would want to have an abortion and I think she has every right to have an abortion. If I was a woman and I was raped, I would have an abortion.

My only point was that if it was some homeless guy or psychopath off the street that committed the rape, I can't imagine any woman wanting to carry the baby to term, not even a very religious woman.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Let me be a little more clear. If a woman is raped, I would assume that she would want to have an abortion and I think she has every right to have an abortion. If I was a woman and I was raped, I would have an abortion.

My only point was that if it was some homeless guy or psychopath off the street that committed the rape, I can't imagine any woman wanting to carry the baby to term, not even a very religious woman.

Bad example, homeless guys are not rape artists...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Bad example, homeless guys are not rape artists...

many homeless have mental issues. and there are a lot of homeless vets. homeless certainly doesn't equate to being criminal.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Bad example, homeless guys are not rape artists...

You're right homeless guys are the epitome of 'good guys' in the PC Obama world.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Bad example, homeless guys are not rape artists...

If a woman sees a homeless person coming towards her, she is actually more safe than if the person coming towards her is not homeless?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

many homeless have mental issues. and there are a lot of homeless vets. homeless certainly doesn't equate to being criminal.

Nobody said that being homeless equated to being a criminal and I didn't mean to imply that in the least bit.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

If a woman sees a homeless person coming towards her, she is actually more safe than if the person coming towards her is not homeless?

Absolutely..the guy next door is more likely to rape than a homeless person..If a homeless guy comes toward you it is most likely to beg for money or food..anyone else, beware...
remember this guy, one of the few recovering homeless addicts..perfect voice..

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/01/13/...-homeless-man/

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Absolutely..the guy next door is more likely to rape than a homeless person..If a homeless guy comes toward you it is most likely to beg for money or food..anyone else, beware...
remember this guy, one of the few recovering homeless addicts..perfect voice..

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/01/13/...-homeless-man/

When's the last time you were in Chicago?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Absolutely..the guy next door is more likely to rape than a homeless person..If a homeless guy comes toward you it is most likely to beg for money or food..anyone else, beware...
remember this guy, one of the few recovering homeless addicts..perfect voice..

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/01/13/...-homeless-man/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

note that homeless are actually more frequently victimized than other groups.


and then there's this:


Myth: Homeless people are dangerous

Fact: In general, the homeless are among the least threatening group in our society and are more likely to be victims of crime themselves. (Natl. Coalition for the Homeless, 2008) Although they are more likely to commit non-violent crimes and non-destructive crimes, they are less likely to commit crimes against person or property. (American Society of Criminology, 2007) In recent years, many cities have made being homeless a crime, by passing measures that target homeless people by making it illegal to perform life-sustaining activities like sleeping, camping, eating, or begging in public. (NCH, 2008)

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Absolutely..the guy next door is more likely to rape than a homeless person..If a homeless guy comes toward you it is most likely to beg for money or food..anyone else, beware...
remember this guy, one of the few recovering homeless addicts..perfect voice..

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/01/13/...-homeless-man/

I would like to see some evidence that homeless people are less likely to rape than the general population. I find that very hard to believe.

Anyway, that's not the point. I mentioned a homeless person as just an example.

And yes, that was a great story about the homeless guy with the golden voice. I followed that story at the time. People have stereotypes about homeless people but in fact they can come from any walk of life.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

note that homeless are actually more frequently victimized than other groups.


and then there's this:


Myth: Homeless people are dangerous

Fact: In general, the homeless are among the least threatening group in our society and are more likely to be victims of crime themselves. (Natl. Coalition for the Homeless, 2008) Although they are more likely to commit non-violent crimes and non-destructive crimes, they are less likely to commit crimes against person or property. (American Society of Criminology, 2007) In recent years, many cities have made being homeless a crime, by passing measures that target homeless people by making it illegal to perform life-sustaining activities like sleeping, camping, eating, or begging in public. (NCH, 2008)

That is interesting. I wouldn't have guessed that. They commit more crimes but less violent crimes.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That is interesting. I wouldn't have guessed that. They commit more crimes but less violent crimes.

They also commit more crimes against each other than the general public.

The Occupy People with all 4K and numerous rapes are the dangerous ones.

And Lara (Glad She'll be Alright) Logan would say protesting Egyptian males are dangerous.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

When's the last time you were in Chicago?

Bout 40 years ago and got outta Dodge quick..