Boycott/ Divest and Pull your College App from All States which violate Our Daughters' Civil Rights

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

And you are an advocate of child rape and on the side of child rapists. You are incredibly disgusting.

??? NP, did not follow that at all. Maybe you have a thought process, but… If anything abortion is used to cover up the crimes of child sex offenders.

Child rapists usually want to force their victims to carry the pregnancies to term. It’s because they are trying to exert power over their victims. It’s known in criminal justice circles. Therefore, the forced birthers who want raped ten-year-olds to carry to term are siding with child rapists.

Of course we have seen how many GOP politicians actually are child rapists (Roy Moore, etc.) so it tracks that forced birthers side with child rapists.

Do you really want to discuss who commits rape?

Dp- men

In the US, white men commit the most rapes.

Is that a fact? Please provide a source.

RAINN generates stats about sexual violence among other services. Go look at the stats. 57 percent of perpetrators are white.

+1

Who is most likely to rape me? White man.

Actually any given black man is more likely to rape you than any given white man. This type of statistical application is pretty misleading.

Nope. 72% of rapes are committed by an acquaintance or current/former partner.

White men do the most raping. Mostly to women/children they know.

You're both correct. On an absolute basis, white men commit twice as many rapes as black men. But there are about 4.5 white men for every black man in the US. It's important not to shift the focus off of minority communities where the problem - on a per capita basis - is most severe, where the most intervention may be needed.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

And you are an advocate of child rape and on the side of child rapists. You are incredibly disgusting.

??? NP, did not follow that at all. Maybe you have a thought process, but… If anything abortion is used to cover up the crimes of child sex offenders.

Child rapists usually want to force their victims to carry the pregnancies to term. It’s because they are trying to exert power over their victims. It’s known in criminal justice circles. Therefore, the forced birthers who want raped ten-year-olds to carry to term are siding with child rapists.

Of course we have seen how many GOP politicians actually are child rapists (Roy Moore, etc.) so it tracks that forced birthers side with child rapists.

Do you really want to discuss who commits rape?

Dp- men

In the US, white men commit the most rapes.

Is that a fact? Please provide a source.

RAINN generates stats about sexual violence among other services. Go look at the stats. 57 percent of perpetrators are white.

+1

Who is most likely to rape me? White man.

Actually any given black man is more likely to rape you than any given white man. This type of statistical application is pretty misleading.

Nope. 72% of rapes are committed by an acquaintance or current/former partner.

White men do the most raping. Mostly to women/children they know.

You're both correct. On an absolute basis, white men commit twice as many rapes as black men. But there are about 4.5 white men for every black man in the US. It's important not to shift the focus off of minority communities where the problem - on a per capita basis - is most severe, where the most intervention may be needed.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence

Certainly all rape should be addressed. BUT I’m most concerned about who might be raping me and my daughters.

White men are most likely to rape us. They are the primary risk to my family. And they are more likely to get away with it or get much lighter sentences.

Plus, when you look at overall numbers, they are the bigger issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

And you are an advocate of child rape and on the side of child rapists. You are incredibly disgusting.

??? NP, did not follow that at all. Maybe you have a thought process, but… If anything abortion is used to cover up the crimes of child sex offenders.

Child rapists usually want to force their victims to carry the pregnancies to term. It’s because they are trying to exert power over their victims. It’s known in criminal justice circles. Therefore, the forced birthers who want raped ten-year-olds to carry to term are siding with child rapists.

Of course we have seen how many GOP politicians actually are child rapists (Roy Moore, etc.) so it tracks that forced birthers side with child rapists.

Do you really want to discuss who commits rape?

Dp- men

In the US, white men commit the most rapes.

Is that a fact? Please provide a source.

RAINN generates stats about sexual violence among other services. Go look at the stats. 57 percent of perpetrators are white.

+1

Who is most likely to rape me? White man.
[/

Are you white?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

And you are an advocate of child rape and on the side of child rapists. You are incredibly disgusting.

??? NP, did not follow that at all. Maybe you have a thought process, but… If anything abortion is used to cover up the crimes of child sex offenders.

Child rapists usually want to force their victims to carry the pregnancies to term. It’s because they are trying to exert power over their victims. It’s known in criminal justice circles. Therefore, the forced birthers who want raped ten-year-olds to carry to term are siding with child rapists.

Of course we have seen how many GOP politicians actually are child rapists (Roy Moore, etc.) so it tracks that forced birthers side with child rapists.

Do you really want to discuss who commits rape?

Dp- men

In the US, white men commit the most rapes.

Is that a fact? Please provide a source.

RAINN generates stats about sexual violence among other services. Go look at the stats. 57 percent of perpetrators are white.

+1

Who is most likely to rape me? White man.

Actually any given black man is more likely to rape you than any given white man. This type of statistical application is pretty misleading.

Nope. 72% of rapes are committed by an acquaintance or current/former partner.

White men do the most raping. Mostly to women/children they know.

You're both correct. On an absolute basis, white men commit twice as many rapes as black men. But there are about 4.5 white men for every black man in the US. It's important not to shift the focus off of minority communities where the problem - on a per capita basis - is most severe, where the most intervention may be needed.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence

Certainly all rape should be addressed. BUT I’m most concerned about who might be raping me and my daughters.

White men are most likely to rape us. They are the primary risk to my family. And they are more likely to get away with it or get much lighter sentences.

Plus, when you look at overall numbers, they are the bigger issue.

Jeff - the racist rant against white men is not valid and is just an opportunity to express hatred and anger. For anyone to state that “white men are primary risk to my family” is racist/. Why is this racism allowed to stand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I should send my smart, talented, giving, ivf conceived daughter off to college in some backwards red state where if the catholics had their way, she would never have walked this earth?

No. Nope. Never. Forget it.

Catholics only? Are Catholics banning IVF in your state? What state?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

And you are an advocate of child rape and on the side of child rapists. You are incredibly disgusting.

??? NP, did not follow that at all. Maybe you have a thought process, but… If anything abortion is used to cover up the crimes of child sex offenders.

Child rapists usually want to force their victims to carry the pregnancies to term. It’s because they are trying to exert power over their victims. It’s known in criminal justice circles. Therefore, the forced birthers who want raped ten-year-olds to carry to term are siding with child rapists.

Of course we have seen how many GOP politicians actually are child rapists (Roy Moore, etc.) so it tracks that forced birthers side with child rapists.

Do you really want to discuss who commits rape?

Dp- men

In the US, white men commit the most rapes.

Is that a fact? Please provide a source.

RAINN generates stats about sexual violence among other services. Go look at the stats. 57 percent of perpetrators are white.

+1

Who is most likely to rape me? White man.

Actually any given black man is more likely to rape you than any given white man. This type of statistical application is pretty misleading.

Nope. 72% of rapes are committed by an acquaintance or current/former partner.

White men do the most raping. Mostly to women/children they know.

You're both correct. On an absolute basis, white men commit twice as many rapes as black men. But there are about 4.5 white men for every black man in the US. It's important not to shift the focus off of minority communities where the problem - on a per capita basis - is most severe, where the most intervention may be needed.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence

Certainly all rape should be addressed. BUT I’m most concerned about who might be raping me and my daughters.

White men are most likely to rape us. They are the primary risk to my family. And they are more likely to get away with it or get much lighter sentences.

Plus, when you look at overall numbers, they are the bigger issue.

Do you live in a segregated área or one that's not diverse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should send my smart, talented, giving, ivf conceived daughter off to college in some backwards red state where if the catholics had their way, she would never have walked this earth?

No. Nope. Never. Forget it.

Catholics only? Are Catholics banning IVF in your state? What state?

The catholic church and other Christian churches were 100 percent involved in getting roe overturned. Imo ivf is most definitely one of their next targets. It is just as immoral so it needs to go for everyone apparently...not just members of the religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should send my smart, talented, giving, ivf conceived daughter off to college in some backwards red state where if the catholics had their way, she would never have walked this earth?

No. Nope. Never. Forget it.

Catholics only? Are Catholics banning IVF in your state? What state?

The catholic church and other Christian churches were 100 percent involved in getting roe overturned. Imo ivf is most definitely one of their next targets. It is just as immoral so it needs to go for everyone apparently...not just members of the religion.[/quote


Can you give specifics on your point?

I did not see IVF mentioned in the ruling. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should send my smart, talented, giving, ivf conceived daughter off to college in some backwards red state where if the catholics had their way, she would never have walked this earth?

No. Nope. Never. Forget it.

Catholics only? Are Catholics banning IVF in your state? What state?

The catholic church and other Christian churches were 100 percent involved in getting roe overturned. Imo ivf is most definitely one of their next targets. It is just as immoral so it needs to go for everyone apparently...not just members of the religion.[/quote


Can you give specifics on your point?

I did not see IVF mentioned in the ruling. Thanks!

Why would it be mentioned in the ruling?

It is against the teachings of the same church of most of the justices that just overturned roe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

And you are an advocate of child rape and on the side of child rapists. You are incredibly disgusting.

??? NP, did not follow that at all. Maybe you have a thought process, but… If anything abortion is used to cover up the crimes of child sex offenders.

Child rapists usually want to force their victims to carry the pregnancies to term. It’s because they are trying to exert power over their victims. It’s known in criminal justice circles. Therefore, the forced birthers who want raped ten-year-olds to carry to term are siding with child rapists.

Of course we have seen how many GOP politicians actually are child rapists (Roy Moore, etc.) so it tracks that forced birthers side with child rapists.

Do you really want to discuss who commits rape?

Dp- men

In the US, white men commit the most rapes.

Is that a fact? Please provide a source.

RAINN generates stats about sexual violence among other services. Go look at the stats. 57 percent of perpetrators are white.

+1

Who is most likely to rape me? White man.

Actually any given black man is more likely to rape you than any given white man. This type of statistical application is pretty misleading.

Nope. 72% of rapes are committed by an acquaintance or current/former partner.

White men do the most raping. Mostly to women/children they know.

You're both correct. On an absolute basis, white men commit twice as many rapes as black men. But there are about 4.5 white men for every black man in the US. It's important not to shift the focus off of minority communities where the problem - on a per capita basis - is most severe, where the most intervention may be needed.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence

Certainly all rape should be addressed. BUT I’m most concerned about who might be raping me and my daughters.

White men are most likely to rape us. They are the primary risk to my family. And they are more likely to get away with it or get much lighter sentences.

Plus, when you look at overall numbers, they are the bigger issue.

Jeff - the racist rant against white men is not valid and is just an opportunity to express hatred and anger. For anyone to state that “white men are primary risk to my family” is racist/. Why is this racism allowed to stand?

It’s just basic facts. White men commit the most rapes. They are the most likely criminals to attack me and my family. And most likely to go unpunished for it.

How is it “racism”? Do you even know what that word means?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should send my smart, talented, giving, ivf conceived daughter off to college in some backwards red state where if the catholics had their way, she would never have walked this earth?

No. Nope. Never. Forget it.

Catholics only? Are Catholics banning IVF in your state? What state?

The catholic church and other Christian churches were 100 percent involved in getting roe overturned. Imo ivf is most definitely one of their next targets. It is just as immoral so it needs to go for everyone apparently...not just members of the religion.

Yup. They want to push their religion on EVERYONE else. Next thing you know they'll be busing kids over from school to church for mandatory "altar boy service".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

And you are an advocate of child rape and on the side of child rapists. You are incredibly disgusting.

??? NP, did not follow that at all. Maybe you have a thought process, but… If anything abortion is used to cover up the crimes of child sex offenders.

Child rapists usually want to force their victims to carry the pregnancies to term. It’s because they are trying to exert power over their victims. It’s known in criminal justice circles. Therefore, the forced birthers who want raped ten-year-olds to carry to term are siding with child rapists.

Of course we have seen how many GOP politicians actually are child rapists (Roy Moore, etc.) so it tracks that forced birthers side with child rapists.

Do you really want to discuss who commits rape?

Dp- men

In the US, white men commit the most rapes.

Is that a fact? Please provide a source.

RAINN generates stats about sexual violence among other services. Go look at the stats. 57 percent of perpetrators are white.

+1

Who is most likely to rape me? White man.

Actually any given black man is more likely to rape you than any given white man. This type of statistical application is pretty misleading.

Nope. 72% of rapes are committed by an acquaintance or current/former partner.

White men do the most raping. Mostly to women/children they know.

You're both correct. On an absolute basis, white men commit twice as many rapes as black men. But there are about 4.5 white men for every black man in the US. It's important not to shift the focus off of minority communities where the problem - on a per capita basis - is most severe, where the most intervention may be needed.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence

Certainly all rape should be addressed. BUT I’m most concerned about who might be raping me and my daughters.

White men are most likely to rape us. They are the primary risk to my family. And they are more likely to get away with it or get much lighter sentences.

Plus, when you look at overall numbers, they are the bigger issue.

Jeff - the racist rant against white men is not valid and is just an opportunity to express hatred and anger. For anyone to state that “white men are primary risk to my family” is racist/. Why is this racism allowed to stand?

It’s just basic facts. White men commit the most rapes. They are the most likely criminals to attack me and my family. And most likely to go unpunished for it.

How is it “racism”? Do you even know what that word means?

And yet, when it’s pointed out that most gun violence is committed by black people, on other black people (just basic facts, right?), that’s called out as “racism.” Seems perhaps YOU need to learn the meaning of the word.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

And you are an advocate of child rape and on the side of child rapists. You are incredibly disgusting.

??? NP, did not follow that at all. Maybe you have a thought process, but… If anything abortion is used to cover up the crimes of child sex offenders.

Child rapists usually want to force their victims to carry the pregnancies to term. It’s because they are trying to exert power over their victims. It’s known in criminal justice circles. Therefore, the forced birthers who want raped ten-year-olds to carry to term are siding with child rapists.

Of course we have seen how many GOP politicians actually are child rapists (Roy Moore, etc.) so it tracks that forced birthers side with child rapists.

Do you really want to discuss who commits rape?

Dp- men

In the US, white men commit the most rapes.

Is that a fact? Please provide a source.

RAINN generates stats about sexual violence among other services. Go look at the stats. 57 percent of perpetrators are white.

+1

Who is most likely to rape me? White man.

Actually any given black man is more likely to rape you than any given white man. This type of statistical application is pretty misleading.

Nope. 72% of rapes are committed by an acquaintance or current/former partner.

White men do the most raping. Mostly to women/children they know.

You're both correct. On an absolute basis, white men commit twice as many rapes as black men. But there are about 4.5 white men for every black man in the US. It's important not to shift the focus off of minority communities where the problem - on a per capita basis - is most severe, where the most intervention may be needed.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence

Certainly all rape should be addressed. BUT I’m most concerned about who might be raping me and my daughters.

White men are most likely to rape us. They are the primary risk to my family. And they are more likely to get away with it or get much lighter sentences.

Plus, when you look at overall numbers, they are the bigger issue.

Jeff - the racist rant against white men is not valid and is just an opportunity to express hatred and anger. For anyone to state that “white men are primary risk to my family” is racist/. Why is this racism allowed to stand?

It’s just basic facts. White men commit the most rapes. They are the most likely criminals to attack me and my family. And most likely to go unpunished for it.

How is it “racism”? Do you even know what that word means?

Violent crime is almost always committed within the same racial group so if you are a white woman then yes, you are more likely to be raped by a white male. But on a per capita basis black males commit far more crimes than any other racial group. Black males comprise 6% of the population and commit 51% of violent crimes according to the DOJ. And again, most of the victims of those crimes are black people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

And you are an advocate of child rape and on the side of child rapists. You are incredibly disgusting.

??? NP, did not follow that at all. Maybe you have a thought process, but… If anything abortion is used to cover up the crimes of child sex offenders.

Child rapists usually want to force their victims to carry the pregnancies to term. It’s because they are trying to exert power over their victims. It’s known in criminal justice circles. Therefore, the forced birthers who want raped ten-year-olds to carry to term are siding with child rapists.

Of course we have seen how many GOP politicians actually are child rapists (Roy Moore, etc.) so it tracks that forced birthers side with child rapists.

Do you really want to discuss who commits rape?

Dp- men

In the US, white men commit the most rapes.

Is that a fact? Please provide a source.

RAINN generates stats about sexual violence among other services. Go look at the stats. 57 percent of perpetrators are white.

+1

Who is most likely to rape me? White man.

Actually any given black man is more likely to rape you than any given white man. This type of statistical application is pretty misleading.

Nope. 72% of rapes are committed by an acquaintance or current/former partner.

White men do the most raping. Mostly to women/children they know.

You're both correct. On an absolute basis, white men commit twice as many rapes as black men. But there are about 4.5 white men for every black man in the US. It's important not to shift the focus off of minority communities where the problem - on a per capita basis - is most severe, where the most intervention may be needed.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence

Certainly all rape should be addressed. BUT I’m most concerned about who might be raping me and my daughters.

White men are most likely to rape us. They are the primary risk to my family. And they are more likely to get away with it or get much lighter sentences.

Plus, when you look at overall numbers, they are the bigger issue.

Jeff - the racist rant against white men is not valid and is just an opportunity to express hatred and anger. For anyone to state that “white men are primary risk to my family” is racist/. Why is this racism allowed to stand?

It’s just basic facts. White men commit the most rapes. They are the most likely criminals to attack me and my family. And most likely to go unpunished for it.

How is it “racism”? Do you even know what that word means?

Violent crime is almost always committed within the same racial group so if you are a white woman then yes, you are more likely to be raped by a white male. But on a per capita basis black males commit far more crimes than any other racial group. Black males comprise 6% of the population and commit 51% of violent crimes according to the DOJ. And again, most of the victims of those crimes are black people.

Whites committed 70% of rapes. And 70% of all crimes.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-43

Per capita is irrelevant. White men are the biggest risk to my family. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

And you are an advocate of child rape and on the side of child rapists. You are incredibly disgusting.

??? NP, did not follow that at all. Maybe you have a thought process, but… If anything abortion is used to cover up the crimes of child sex offenders.

Child rapists usually want to force their victims to carry the pregnancies to term. It’s because they are trying to exert power over their victims. It’s known in criminal justice circles. Therefore, the forced birthers who want raped ten-year-olds to carry to term are siding with child rapists.

Of course we have seen how many GOP politicians actually are child rapists (Roy Moore, etc.) so it tracks that forced birthers side with child rapists.

Do you really want to discuss who commits rape?

Dp- men

In the US, white men commit the most rapes.

Is that a fact? Please provide a source.

RAINN generates stats about sexual violence among other services. Go look at the stats. 57 percent of perpetrators are white.

+1

Who is most likely to rape me? White man.

Actually any given black man is more likely to rape you than any given white man. This type of statistical application is pretty misleading.

Nope. 72% of rapes are committed by an acquaintance or current/former partner.

White men do the most raping. Mostly to women/children they know.

You're both correct. On an absolute basis, white men commit twice as many rapes as black men. But there are about 4.5 white men for every black man in the US. It's important not to shift the focus off of minority communities where the problem - on a per capita basis - is most severe, where the most intervention may be needed.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence

Certainly all rape should be addressed. BUT I’m most concerned about who might be raping me and my daughters.

White men are most likely to rape us. They are the primary risk to my family. And they are more likely to get away with it or get much lighter sentences.

Plus, when you look at overall numbers, they are the bigger issue.

Jeff - the racist rant against white men is not valid and is just an opportunity to express hatred and anger. For anyone to state that “white men are primary risk to my family” is racist/. Why is this racism allowed to stand?

It’s just basic facts. White men commit the most rapes. They are the most likely criminals to attack me and my family. And most likely to go unpunished for it.

How is it “racism”? Do you even know what that word means?

Violent crime is almost always committed within the same racial group so if you are a white woman then yes, you are more likely to be raped by a white male. But on a per capita basis black males commit far more crimes than any other racial group. Black males comprise 6% of the population and commit 51% of violent crimes according to the DOJ. And again, most of the victims of those crimes are black people.

Whites committed 70% of rapes. And 70% of all crimes.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-43

Per capita is irrelevant. White men are the biggest risk to my family. Period.

You really can’t understand why per capita is the only relevant statistic?