Indiana Rep Says Women Will Fake Rape Or Incest To Get An Abortion

No description available.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• IndianaAbortion

[JoshuaWaller]

@IWEEW I can't think of a single woman who would do that.

What you're saying is that you'd rather all of society to pay more because you have an opinion. Tell you what... You pay for it.  If you don't want women to have abortions, you can pay to support their children.

You cannot force someone to take responsibility. But you can tax everyone to help pay for those responsibilities. That's what's happening. I prefer the route that's economically sound for everyone. You don't.

[JoshuaWaller]

@IWEEW Your morals are your own. You can only reasonably expect yourself to live up to them. Expecting everyone else to agree with your morals is unreasonable.

The reasons why a woman would want to have an abortion are quite numerous, and could be because of rape or incest (and fear of hating her child), health issues, or the simple lack of desire to go through with it. That's her business, and not yours, mine, or the government's. Only she can best judge her decision.

[bagakiwi]

Eric Turner is the perfect example of the Republican Right. They say over and over that they don't want big government----UNTIL it involves a woman's uterus or the rights of same-sex couples. Then, he and every one of his Right-Wing cronies in public office suddenly believe their government has the right to control people. I wonder what skeletons are in Mr. Turner's closet to make him so Holier-Than-Thou?? Been playing footsies in the men's room, Eric?

[JoshuaWaller]

@CriminalTruth I'll say it again, "We shouldn't punish a gender because society is stupid, we should tell people to stop being dumb."

I'm advocating a change of societal and (especially) legal positions when it comes to gender issues. If a law specifies a particular gender at all, it's unconstitutional. Don't grant one gender more power on one issue because the other gender has more power on another. Take a look at the initial problem, instead, and solve it. Why create more problems?

[CriminalTruth]

@JoshuaWaller

your suggestion is to not punish gender, yet the male gender is being punished every day. Again, look at the major "rape" news stories and see how many of those turned out to be false SDK, Hostra. So your saying its better to put away an innocent person to be 'safe". To condemn a person before they ever set foot into a court system. that is what you are advocating?

[JoshuaWaller]

@CriminalTruth Did you seriously just quote Spiderman at me? Comic book philosophy doesn't apply to real world scenarios.

You're basically saying that because there's still obvious issues with sexual discrimination in our country, instead of focusing on the problem, we should encourage the discrimination.

I disagree. I think we should look at the issues that encourage societies views on gender. We shouldn't punish a gender because society is stupid, we should tell people to stop being dumb.

[CriminalTruth]

@JoshuaWaller

They should. WIth great power comes great responsibility. If they have the power to put any guy away just on words alone they should have the higher obligation.

[degeneratehalo]

PIece by piece they are chipping away at our rights

[JoshuaWaller]

@CatholicFaithInfo As for "miracles"... there's so many problems with the tales of such. Just because the witness couldn't explain what was happening, doesn't mean that someone else couldn't. And just because no one can explain it, doesn't mean that there isn't a scientically sound explanation.

After all, no one was able to explain the Aurora Borealis in the past. Without our current knowledge, someone witnessing it may very well thought it an act of god. Heh, some may still.

[JoshuaWaller]

@CatholicFaithInfo If I were to point to a random star in the sky, and tell you that a planet was orbiting that star which contained an alien life form. Would you tell me that my statement were true, or false, or would you tell me that there's no way I could know?

What if, instead, I told you that a container which was inaccessible to you or I, which no one can reliably claim to have seen contains all of the power of the universe? It might be in our universe, or it may not. No one knows.

[JoshuaWaller]

@CatholicFaithInfo You're assuming one single explanation of reality is the true explanation, when there's an infinite number of possible explanations. Obviously, only one can be correct, but the odds of us actually knowing which is the correct one are infinitesimally small.

I agree that explicit atheism is absolutely irrational, but it's just as irrational as stating that any particular belief is the true one.

[JoshuaWaller]

@CatholicFaithInfo You're assuming again.

Atheism is a general term. The most literal definition means "someone who doesn't believe in a god". A newborn doesn't believe in a god, for example, but they also don't think that a god doesn't exist. A newborn child qualifies as an atheist. What you're talking about is "explicit" atheism.

I'm an implicit atheist. I don't believe in any particular concept of god, but I don't reject every possibility of god. I simply try to learn and understand.