Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Intersting how the left wing pro choicers worried about the future health of a pregnant woman and her child, believe in their ability to make a choice to end a pregnancy to presumably have a healthier and safer life.
However when a homeowner wants a gun to defend themselves from intruders who may cause harm to them and their family that is forbidden; they are just crazy gun totting RWNJs.
So much hypocrisy in politics it is sickening.
Completely agree about hypocrisy! Like pro-lifers who only care about the kid until it takes its first breath!
so.... killing babies isn't extreme at all... again both the Democratic party and the position you have articulated in this thread as your own is that a woman has the right to abort right up to the day she gives live birth.
and you are pointing your finger and claiming others are extremists.
I also think its extreme to suggest that its impossible for women to start making really smart decisions about their health and future by insuring their sexual activity will not lead them to pregnancy.
I think its sexist to suggest women need excuses and cannot make smart choices.
Killing babies is extreme. Having an abortion is not. Because a 12-week old fetus is not a baby. And I'm just pointing out that the idea that women are somehow not capable of making decisions about their own lives and bodies is extremist. Women are just as competent to determine what is in their best interests as men are. And while I'm not saying that you hold on to this idea, there are many out there who seem to subscribe to the idea that women deserve to be punished for having sex. I reject that idea utterly. Sex is a natural part of life, it's part of what makes us human. The development of safe (and I use that term relatively) birth control has given women much more control over their lives. Abortion reinforces the concept that a woman should have such control, that her body is hers, that her life is hers. Is it a huge responsibility? Absolutely. But I can assure you that the vast majority of women take abortion very seriously, it is not casual, it is not about convenience, it is a very serious choice, and they don't make that choice lightly. Admonishing women to not have sex actually takes things lightly. I can only think that the people who advise unmarried women to live lives of complete abstinence (because that's the only way a woman can 100% avoid an unwanted pregnancy) and to live in some kind of cloistered world where there is no risk of being sexually assaulted, are people who don't have much of a sex drive, and who live a somewhat cloistered existence themselves.
Making the choice that's best for yourself is not needing excuses. Abortion can be a smart choice for some women.
So I read the article.
1. there is no indication that the men in question are in long term relationships where sex is involved (living in sin)
2. the woman being fired was not fired for being pregnant, but for living in sin.
If its found that there are men the university knows are living sinful lifestyles then she has a case and if I were involved with that school I would fire everyone in mgmt.
DC, that is the standard pretty much across the Conservative Christian spectrum. a sin is repented for and we all move along and love those who fell down.
defiantly living a life that is sinful is and utterly different thing. This woman seeks continual employment by a religious institution while defiantly telling them she intends to live a sinful lifestyle.
Again, I appreciate that you clarified earlier how you were using "sin". But whether the relationship is long-term or not is irrelevant in this context to living a sinful lifestyle. If the men are engaged in long-term relationships or in serial one-night stands, as far as the school is concerned, they are engaging in a sinful lifestyle, because they are engaging in repeated, unmarried sex. The school's complaint was that she didn't act regretful, she wasn't apologetic. However, the men having sex with their girlfriends or with women they pick up at a bar aren't being asked to confess and apologize to management for their choices. That is discrimination.
so.... killing babies isn't extreme at all... again both the Democratic party and the position you have articulated in this thread as your own is that a woman has the right to abort right up to the day she gives live birth. .
What do you believe should be the cut off? Egg fertilization? 1st trimester? 20 weeks? ...
Yes, there are many other issues that we can do this with.
This all goes back to the idea that too many fall in lockstep to party ideology instead of thinking for themself.
Yes, both parties are filled with hypocrisy. I may lean a little to the left, especially on social issues, but I am definitely not 100% on either side. They are both corrupt, I just hope to vote for the least corrupt!
Again, I appreciate that you clarified earlier how you were using "sin". But whether the relationship is long-term or not is irrelevant in this context to living a sinful lifestyle. If the men are engaged in long-term relationships or in serial one-night stands, as far as the school is concerned, they are engaging in a sinful lifestyle, because they are engaging in repeated, unmarried sex. The school's complaint was that she didn't act regretful, she wasn't apologetic. However, the men having sex with their girlfriends or with women they pick up at a bar aren't being asked to confess and apologize to management for their choices. That is discrimination.
well we have left the debate for another one all together.
if the school is allowing men to live sinful lifestyles (that is living with a woman who they are not married to) then the school is wrong.
if the men (or man?) have made mistakes in their past that they are repentant of then she has no case.
The story (I read it) does not clarify the point. It only says the school has men who have children with women they never married. The point is not clarified.
We do not know if they are engaging in repeated unmarried sex. The article does not make that charge.
There is no indication in the article that the men were not counseled about their behavior.
The claim is that "men who have had children out of wedlock have not been fired"
That is ALL the article says Richardson claims. Now if you have other information then lets talk about that.
IF (and I already said it) IF these men are living a sinful lifestyle and not being dealt with by the religious institution then the institution is out of line.
However, Richardson admitted that she is living in sin and plans to continue to live in sin AND she wants this institution to continue to employ her while she lives in sin. The school is not taking issue with her being pregnant. In fact she admits this. She said she was told if this was the result of a momentary laps she would be fine. (and kudos to the school for that).
Killing babies is extreme. Having an abortion is not. Because a 12-week old fetus is not a baby. And I'm just pointing out that the idea that women are somehow not capable of making decisions about their own lives and bodies is extremist. Women are just as competent to determine what is in their best interests as men are. And while I'm not saying that you hold on to this idea, there are many out there who seem to subscribe to the idea that women deserve to be punished for having sex. I reject that idea utterly. Sex is a natural part of life, it's part of what makes us human. The development of safe (and I use that term relatively) birth control has given women much more control over their lives. Abortion reinforces the concept that a woman should have such control, that her body is hers, that her life is hers. Is it a huge responsibility? Absolutely. But I can assure you that the vast majority of women take abortion very seriously, it is not casual, it is not about convenience, it is a very serious choice, and they don't make that choice lightly. Admonishing women to not have sex actually takes things lightly. I can only think that the people who advise unmarried women to live lives of complete abstinence (because that's the only way a woman can 100% avoid an unwanted pregnancy) and to live in some kind of cloistered world where there is no risk of being sexually assaulted, are people who don't have much of a sex drive, and who live a somewhat cloistered existence themselves.
Making the choice that's best for yourself is not needing excuses. Abortion can be a smart choice for some women.
If a 12-week old "fetus" is not a baby, why is it's heart beating at anywhere from 130 to 170 bpm?
Planned Parenthood would have considered this little one as "not viable" and harvested his organs. This story reveals why they don't want mothers to have sonograms before they abort their children.
He'd have been worth a lot of$$money$$if he were accidentally born alive, I mean "delivered intact."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
