Lisnpuppy Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 The rule on Row vs Wade only protects abortion to a point. Basically it says under the 14th amendment that woman had this right but it had to be balanced against the state's rights to protect women's health and prenatal life. So a restriction as you mention Colour typically when made by a state is upheld as it can be argued this is to protect these things. The right of a State increases as the pregnancy goes forth to the point that the baby is considered viable (and this isn't something that should be argued here-when life begins or anything like that. This is a statement not an opening for discussion on that particular.) Now things like (and I can't remember if it was North or South Dakota) made it so women seeking this had to watch movies of aborted babies before they could get one many times are struck down. This has no bearing on the health of the woman or fetus. Now again...we typically close threads that get on an abortion topic but I will allow a continuation of this IF it remains civil, non-personal relatively on the topic and sticks to facts. The second it moves away from this I will have to close the thread. So please tread lightly. Please note that I will no longer be posting in this topic as I do not like to post and moderate the same topic. Thanks.~Lisnpuppy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONKENFAP Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 (edited) I'd never even heard of a trans vaginal probe. It seems like these measures try to target emotions (forcing women to watch movies or see their own ultrasound) so I guess the opposition are projecting their own feeling on the issue into legislation. Here in Australia they have to be much stealthier. One of the last things Julia Gillard did as prime minister was lowering the cost of an abortion pill called RU486 to $12. Now people are worried though since our new prime minister Tony Abbot is a conservative with the usual Christian values. However, he can't openly discuss abortion like your politicians seem to do, so if anything happens it will probably low-key, like price changes or rejection. Edited February 2, 2014 by DONKENFAP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted February 2, 2014 Author Share Posted February 2, 2014 (edited) I'd never even heard of a trans vaginal probe. It seems like these measures try to target emotions (forcing women to watch movies or see their own ultrasound) so I guess the opposition are projecting their own feeling on the issue into legislation. Here in Australia they have to be much stealthier. One of the last things Julia Gillard did as prime minister was lowering the cost of an abortion pill called RU486 to $12. Now people are worried though since our new prime minister Tony Abbot is a conservative with the usual Christian values. However, he can't openly discuss abortion like your politicians seem to do, so if anything happens it will probably low-key, like price changes or rejection. A trans-vaginal probe is just like a regular ultrasound but uses a probe that is stuck up inside a woman's vagina to get a clearer picture of the woman's fetus. It's a practice that is not used very often and is more costly than a regular ultrasound. It is totally an unnecessary procedure even for those who are not actively seeking to have an abortion. but moving on... The Republican party is even indirectly effecting a woman's right to vote with these new ID laws which state if you are registered under one name and it does not correlate with your current name you are unable to vote without re-registering. This has caused even females who serve in public office preventing them to vote on election day because their names are register under their married name instead of their maiden name when a women happens to get a divorce that year. This is totally disenfranchising even women and people in general with in their own party. It's just another attempt for the party to shrink the electorate hoping it can help to win back national elections. The Republican party claims they are fighting a "war for women" when you only need to look at their polices and legislative laws that directly and indirectly effect women in such negative ways.... Edited February 3, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pheo3309 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Now things like (and I can't remember if it was North or South Dakota) made it so women seeking this had to watch movies of aborted babies before they could get one many times are struck down. This has no bearing on the health of the woman or fetus. Oklahoma had something similar too. Narrative ultrasounds or something like that. Had to have it even if they objected. Pretty sure that one was struck down too. It's been ages since I've actually looked into this topic though, so you may wanna fact check me on that. The Republican party is even indirectly effecting a woman's right to vote with these new ID laws which state if you are registered under one name and it does not correlate with your current name you are unable to vote without re-registering. This has caused even females who serve in public office preventing them to vote on election day because their names are register under their married name instead of their maiden name when a women happens to get a divorce that year. This is totally disenfranchising even women and people in general with in their own party. It's just another attempt for the party to shrink the electorate hoping it can help to win back national elections. The Republican party claims they are fighting a "war for women" when you only need to look at their polices and legislative laws that directly and indirectly effect women in such negative ways.... I think this is a very good point right here, Colour. I still don't know if it's because they're intimidated by the female vote or if it's because they're intimidated that women are getting tired of the oppressive behaviors and stigmas and are stepping it up... But one thing I do know for sure is that we shouldn't say that one sex is more capable than the other based on biology. We should be as capable as we make ourselves out to be as individuals alone. I'd rather chastise someone for being incapable of handling our nations decisions based on what they're doing rather than basing everything on their sex. It's not fair at all. Thanks for bringing this up Colour! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 There are some things that men ARE better at. They have the physique to deal with some jobs, that most women, do not. Much as some would like us to believe, there ARE differences between the sexes. (and what's really funny is, women are banned from combat flight operations, but, they actually make better combat pilots. :) Just ask the Russians.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pheo3309 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) Physique has nothing to really do with it. I've seen women take down a 6'4'' 250 pound man down like they were a ragdoll. There are women who are martial artist experts. They have proven themselves more than capable. This is part of the social stigmas that is making it seem like women are incapable of dealing or being female is a disorder, when loads of them have proven otherwise. I can't do half the stuff that the women do at their jobs where I live, but they're still women. Being a woman doesn't make them less of a hard worker than a man. If they can do it, what's the problem? Edited February 3, 2014 by pheo3309 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONKENFAP Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Physique has nothing to really do with it. I've seen women take down a 6'4'' 250 pound man down like they were a ragdoll. There are women who are martial artist experts. They have proven themselves more than capable. This is part of the social stigmas that is making it seem like women are incapable of dealing or being female is a disorder, when loads of them have proven otherwise. I can't do half the stuff that the women do at their jobs where I live, but they're still women. Being a woman doesn't make them less of a hard worker than a man. If they can do it, what's the problem? I think you are maybe missing his point, or I am :\ At a mechanical level men are better than women at certain things. We have more potential for muscle. So we should be able not only to state this, but also to use it to our (as in species) benefit. There's a trend of political correctness resulting in potential scientific censorship that rustles my jimmies. Stating the above however does not mean "women can't do X" nor does it mean women are an inferior gender. Not sure how we got onto wonder woman beating Mr. 6'4" 250 pounds though :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted February 3, 2014 Author Share Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) There are things women ARE better at as well as men ARE better at others. This shouldn't give any excuse for oppressive behaviors towards either sex through legislation and/or social policies. Edited February 3, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 There are things women ARE better at as well as men ARE better at others. This shouldn't give any excuse for oppressive behaviors towards either sex through legislation and/or social policies. I agree, there shouldn't be any legislation promoting one sex, over the other, under any circumstance. If I ran a construction business, who do you think I would be more likely to hire though? A woman? Or a man? They may both have the exact same training/experience, but, will the woman be able to keep up with the man? Sure, there are some that will be able to not only keep up, but, surpass him. But, are they the rule? No, they are not, they are the exception. (and therefore, considered, in this case, "exceptional".) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajKrAzAm Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Physique has nothing to really do with it. I've seen women take down a 6'4'' 250 pound man down like they were a ragdoll. There are women who are martial artist experts. They have proven themselves more than capable. This is part of the social stigmas that is making it seem like women are incapable of dealing or being female is a disorder, when loads of them have proven otherwise. I can't do half the stuff that the women do at their jobs where I live, but they're still women. Being a woman doesn't make them less of a hard worker than a man. If they can do it, what's the problem? Haha, thanks for making me laugh. Sure. You've seen a 250lb man ragdolled by a girl... Did you see this in a cartoon? The only way a women could possibly compete with a man is if she were seriously juiced up, but then she would have the hormonal profile of man. Women are useless at hard physical labor. Modern people are so removed from the harsh physical reality of nature that they have no conception of how real gender differences are in these settings. We have deluded ourselves into thinking that egalitarian ideology can surpass nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts