Forced Slavery By The Anti-Abortion Republicans

Republicans plan to force women into slavery, by making them have children born without arms and legs. Like the black man on the news last night, born without arms and legs, his mother must care for him her whole life. The man is 40 years old, and his mother is still pushing him around in a wheelchair everywhere he goes, everyday. Some charitable people just bought her a van with lift, so she doesn't have to lift him in her car, and put the wheelchair in the trunk.

But that's only one case...there will be literally millions of women forced to have children they have no way of providing for....so we will all end up paying to raise these children, because many will be deserted. Many of the children and mothers will end up in prison, which will cost $40,000 per year each.

There is already three million in the prison system today. If abortion is banned, that number will double. That's 6 million x $40,000 per year ADDED TO YOUR TAXES!

Oh dang, there I go again, hating those poor fascists.

 

The day will come when Congress is no longer predominantly republican. Don't fret Rj. We'll see it all turn around eventually. How long are congressional terms anyway? lol.. I should know this from American Government courses in college but I've forgotten. I bet google knows..

 

Every two years in the House, every six years in the Senate.

But as long as wimpy dems keep saying, "shhh, don't offend the bigots" they'll keep deceiving the ignorant. And Trump is proof that we have a pandemic of stupid in this country.

 

This portrayal is a bit off (imho :-D). I agree with the last statement though.

But if you want individual freedoms and rights to prevail in your country how useful is it to battle the bigots with insults or by deliberately offending them? It is not. Which is what some dems understand. Wether you like it or not true progression is made by keeping things constructive. I don't know every democrat politician so there may be a few who fit your description of chronical appeasement and 'let's go along with them as it is better not to offend them' but to portray it as the general and overall situation seems wrong. Avoiding offending others is not such a bad thing in politics, at least not if you want a particular result. I agree it shouldn't go at the expense of what they stand for themselves but that this is happening because 'dems are wimpy' doesn't really seems the case. It sucks that there seems to be a majority of people in your country that rallies against the things you and me value most (like certain individual rights and freedoms), but that doesn't mean that by avoiding insults those dems are giving in. They simply have to swallow what democracy really is. If they want to counter it (they do), they need make use of reason and logic and show what is right and what's not. You seem to see that as wimpy But really what do you think would happen if they would speak out in the same way you do?

 

Hell yes! I'm voting Republican!

 

Oh dear god

You think its at all possible, that if you didnt come off so strong initially people might take you and your argument a bit more serious?


This post sounds ridiculous, especially starting off with that first sentence

 

I feel the same way about union literature. Their favorite word is "fight". They want to "fight" for the workers so they get what they "deserve". Or they want to "fight" the government for the workers yadda yadda yadda. Just once I'd like to see union delegates who didn't see fighting as their primary goal. I wonder how things might work out if they actually tried to meet the discussion half way? But I know better. And I know greedy corporate America as well. So it could be that in many cases leading with the fight is the only way to establish respect. Which is really a sad state of affairs.

On the abortion issue, I get the feeling that folks think the GOP will be able to simply waltz in and flip a switch and end abortion. That simply can't happen. One reason it didn't happen with Reagan or Bush 2 was because it would have totally bogged them down in congress and they would not have been able to get a dime for their war games. GW even ignored medical marijuana. The other thing is that we have a LOT of women in the US who are doctors now, which was not the case when abortion was first legalized. Even before Roe vs Wade states were the ones regulating the issue. While most made it utterly illegal, some had exceptions and 4 or 5 states, including New York, still allowed abortion on demand.

The fear side of it has been dredged up at every turn by the opposition. They paint pictures of back ally, coat hanger clinics at the merest mention of a discussion on the issue. When such images are not only dated, few people alive today even remember those times. So it's a risky tactic to use in the modern age. But again, plenty of today's doctors are women and I am positive that few of them would sit by idly while the issue is debated by evil old rich republicans. And that's why nothing happens fast in the US. It's also why Obama is having such a tough time going after guns, it's too polarizing and politically damaging to mess with any aspect of the bill of rights.

Abortion is a wedge issue and has been since I have been voting. I watch it get trotted out every election cycle and I see it go on, unchanged. And I can personally say that even if I had to fly my wife to China, we would not be giving birth to a horribly deformed baby. Such a thing would be sheer cruelty.

 

Yes, it sucks when a girl you care for aborts what may be yours. That's what most abortions are, stupidly!

But I don't think there should be a war of options based on religious ideology. There is an extrememly strong christain element to American politics. They have a lot of power. I think abortions suck, but you know if I wanna fuck that girl, go ahead and abort it cause that guy was an asshole!

Sorry, but I have limited experiences with abortion. I think it can help someones destiny to have one. If someone was going to abort, it woulda likely been very hard to fight that urge for 18 years to life. I don't find that hell is all that real or perminant. So I don't worry about hell much.

 

????
WHAT???

:dizzy2:

 

Surprise abortions usually only occur after surprise sex (ie rape)

 

This sounds like a MSM 'Headline'; all you needed to add was 'more at 6'.

Are you sure you are not on a fear producing campaign? Some of your rants are way off logical and only ever directed at the Rep. You seem to give a pass to the last 7 years to which the Dem lead Government has taken America further down the Dystopian pathway. Rose colored glasses with horse blinders on; please remove and all will become abundantly clearer.

To further expand:

So in your logic: the Republicans forced this women, 40 years ago, to give birth to her child?.

So in your logic: The children born with disabilities and their mothers will end up in prison.

So in your logic: If abortions become illegal; the children with disabilities will infest the Justice system 2 fold simply because they were born with disabilities and find it hard to survive?

With your logic absurdly noted; please stay away from ideas or thoughts that require a sound mind and judgment; also citations to your claims would be appreciative.

 

People sure do get nutty over abortion.

One of my favorite sentiments on the subject:



But yes, banning abortion seems incredibly shortsighted, and while saying that the GOP is trying to enslave women is pretty extreme, I can sympathize with what you are trying to say. It's a shame that a lot of the people who disdain abortion also don't support birth control, the promotion of which is probably our best tool against abortion!

 

This has never made sense to me. I guess poor people are just expected to practice abstinence their whole lives.

If conservatives are really serious about preventing abortion you would think they would be campaigning to make birth control available over the counter at a low price.

 

I'm not sure how a woman giving birth to a deformed kid amounts to forced servitude, atleast not more than it would be for her to have completely healthy children. Nature is a slave master, forcing women to have the ability to bear and birth offspring. Who would've ever thought it? Yet some go so far as to constantly accuse Republicans of waging war against women.

 

Try to follow this.....abortion is banned by holier than thou republicans that want to regulate morality in peoples sex lives. Hundreds of thousands of women get pregnant by being raped, or incest, or just one night stands. Forced to have kids they can't afford to raise. Many abandon those kids, who become wards of the state in orphanages. Many try to raise the kids, by getting lame ass jobs that don't pay the bills....mom is not able to supervise kids because she is working two jobs....kids get in trouble and become criminals, go to prison....some women resort to crime to raise kids...go to prison. And "some kids" are born with deformities that force mom to care for it her whole life.

Logic is easier if you take the blinders off.

 

He's saying that if a woman is pregnant with a child she knows will have great physical or cognitive struggles, and is unable to have an abortion, she is then FORCED to have the child against her will. A child she might not be equipped to care for or even provide with any sort of quality of life. He's reasoning that children with disabilities are EXTREMELY expensive, time consuming, and mentally and physically draining on many parents and on social services. Much more so than a typically developing child--but any unwanted child (or even wanted child), can be costly and draining as well.

Either way, "nature" doesn't care if a woman has a child or not, "nature" kills it's fair amount of offspring, and nature sees no life as sacred or not sacred, human judgement and traditional morality see it that way. So by imposing morally inspired laws upon women, you are burdening not only those women, but the society which has to sustain them when they cannot continue to support their unwanted children. And you're right, nature "forces" women to have the ABILITY to bear children (or not bear children), but does not force them to actually bear these children. For some reason, some folks think that decision should be left up to the government? And not to the men and women whose bodies and finances must bear these unwanted burdens?

Let me mention, too, that I am personally opposed to abortion in the sense that I would never get one myself. But I don't let that personal moral belief cloud my view so much as to believe that everyone else must follow my same compass, and that my viewpoint is the only one that could be true.

 

I really want to thank you for that great post.

Maybe people would understand me if they knew that my mother is a republican that talked a girl into getting an abortion who I got pregnant. The girl didn't tell me she was pregnant until three days before I was supposed to go over seas when I was in the army. I took the girl to my mom, and told her that I would marry her when I got back. Two weeks later I got a letter from the girl telling me she hated me because of the abortion that my mom had talked her into. My mom drove her to the clinic.

Can anyone see the hypocrisy?

When the Planned Parenthood shooter did the massacre, my mom called me to tell me that she agreed with the shooters ideology, just not his actions. Guess she thinks her actions were not hypocritical either.

 

You just paraphrased your original post and re posted it.

Secondly, the numbers of pregnancies for rape (all forms) that you mentioned are way off.
According to rainn: in 2012 rapes numbered 346,830: of those rapes 17,342 resulted in pregnancies. So the 100s of thousands of pregnancies from rape you mentioned, is wrong. https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims

One night stands are not rapes and should not be accounted for in you claim.

There is no claim, to be found, of kids born to rape victims incarcerated.

There is no claim, to be found, to reference your abandonment claim.

All your claims can realistically be attributed to a disorganized family, not necessarily to victims of rape and their offspring.

My point to my original post was to show you that in reference to your claims, there are no references. You take what you heard: spin it: then outlay it to a forum post with no credible references.

You come across as the very epitome of the types you so clearly despise. Those of whom do not side with your claims, you quickly claim them to be part of the problem: to which you need to seriously look at yourself. The Radical way in which you word your posts and the claims you insist on, ARE the problem.

 

safe haven laws in most the states.. drop baby off the police station, fire station, hospital.

 

have you ever considered professional counseling rather than just venting ridiculous nonsense in a hippy forum in an attempt to assuage your repressed rage at all the horrible things done to poor little you when you were a youngster?