Customer Discussions > Politics forum

....But there is no war on women.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 75 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jun 14, 2012 12:41:27 PM PDT
C. Batty says:
http://www.freep.com/article/20120614/NEWS15/120614049/Michigan-house-representatives-abortion-comments?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

Freedom of speech has it limits - at least in the state House of Representatives.

State Reps. Lisa Brown, D-West Bloomfield, and Barb Byrum, D-Onondaga, were told today that they wouldn't be recognized to publicly speak on any matters before the House because of comments they made Wednesday during an emotional debate on a bill that puts new restrictions on abortion providers.

Brown, who voted against the legislation, told supporters of the bill, "I'm flattered you're all so concerned about my vagina. But no means no."

And Byrum was gaveled out of order after she protested when she wasn't allowed to speak on her amendment to the bill that would have required proof of a medical emergency or that a man's life was in danger before a doctor could perform a vasectomy.

Freedom of speech has it limits - at least in the state House of Representatives.

State Reps. Lisa Brown, D-West Bloomfield, and Barb Byrum, D-Onondaga, were told today that they wouldn't be recognized to publicly speak on any matters before the House because of comments they made Wednesday during an emotional debate on a bill that puts new restrictions on abortion providers.

Brown, who voted against the legislation, told supporters of the bill, "I'm flattered you're all so concerned about my vagina. But no means no."

And Byrum was gaveled out of order after she protested when she wasn't allowed to speak on her amendment to the bill that would have required proof of a medical emergency or that a man's life was in danger before a doctor could perform a vasectomy.

Posted on Jun 14, 2012 12:44:34 PM PDT
G. Burke says:
It didn't make any more sense the second time.

Posted on Jun 14, 2012 1:05:38 PM PDT
Roger says:
Barb Bynum was indeed out of order the moment she thought about comparing abortions to vasectomies. Apples to oranges. Now she would have had an excellent point if tubal ligations were being restricted. I haven't read anything about those being restricted. I have to side with the House on this one.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 1:09:33 PM PDT
Boomy says:
If the restrictions are useless like Virginia's law about getting a useless ultrasound, then it is similar...

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 1:10:11 PM PDT
<<Barb Bynum was indeed out of order the moment she thought about comparing abortions to vasectomies. Apples to oranges.>>

No, apples to smaller apples.

Both are elective surgeries that deal with reproduction in humans. For some reason restricting a woman's access to her surgery is considered morally fine, whereas restricting a man's access is considered freakish and impermissible.

It just illustrates the double standard, that's all.

Posted on Jun 14, 2012 1:15:50 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 14, 2012 1:19:40 PM PDT
Roger says:
I respectfully disagree with both of you. Your opinions. Thing is, the mention of a vasectomy, in this particular case, is a strawman argument being that a vasectomy would most likely prevent an unwanted pregnancy, thus preventing an abortion, in a similar manner that a tubal ligation would. (which is the example I just used). The entire point of this debate is the issue and restriction of abortion, (edit) not pregnancy prevention.
Which is probably why Bynum was silenced.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 1:19:43 PM PDT
Ryan S. Hupp says:
"Which is probably why Bynum was silenced."

Her amendment barely moves the needle on the legislative absurdity scale, and whether or not you feel it's a poorly formed argument, it is at least relevant to the bill it's attached to. Why then was she (and Brown) barred from speaking out?

Posted on Jun 14, 2012 1:29:40 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 14, 2012 1:32:26 PM PDT
Roger says:
Her amendment 'barely' being absurd is debatable, don't you think? My only problem here is the use of her argument. When you have to grasp at something that has little relevence to an issue (I say little because it does fall under birth control at least) then you are indicating your lack of knowledge on the issue OR blatanly throwing everything you have because you have nothing of use left. Do you understand? Now I firmly believe adult women can make these type of decisions on their own. I have no problem with that. Those fighting for womens' rights need to do it right, though.

Also, that would be the only example where I could understand one of the women barred from speaking out. Any comments made prior to the hearing, or comments actually having to do with abortion, then I agree it would be wrong to silence them.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 1:34:58 PM PDT
C. Batty says:
But what about the millions of miracle sperm babies aborted?

Posted on Jun 14, 2012 1:35:22 PM PDT
The fact of the matter is, there is no male equivalent of abortion. In reality, reproduction is the woman's burden. Lib men just don't want to dictate what choice women make, especially in the beginning.

Comparing it to a vasectomy is a fallacy.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 1:36:13 PM PDT
C. Batty says:
Whether or not you agree with the ammendment, it was an ammendment to the bill. Should it not have been debated?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 1:38:50 PM PDT
C. Batty says:
Comparing it to a vasecetomy is an attempt to give people with no empathy a glimmer of an idea what it is like to have your medical and physical atonomy on the governmental block.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 1:40:07 PM PDT
Roger says:
Miracle sperm babies? Not only is that a strawman, but it's an oxymoron.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 1:40:22 PM PDT
MisterTee says:
I have every intention of protecting your vagina, as well as the others here.

They're among my favorite things. I honestly think they're terrific.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 1:42:13 PM PDT
Rev. Otter says:
<<Comparing it to a vasectomy is a phallusy.>>

you missed a golden opprotunity right there. just saying. :)

Posted on Jun 14, 2012 5:14:38 PM PDT
Well I Bet if ALL women closed the door to sex-No Worry about getting Pregnant.ALL the men would back down ..AND..let the women made their own choice's regarding their bodies. A DRY SPELL IS JUST WHAT THE DOCTOR ORDERED!!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 5:27:47 PM PDT
MisterTee says:
Or you gals could just stop by my place... I'm *totally* on your side !

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 5:27:59 PM PDT
C. Batty says:
Is it really a strawman in a country where we are arguing about Birth Control again? If the morning after pill causes an abortion, fellatio is cannibalism

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 5:35:37 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 14, 2012 5:40:09 PM PDT
Roger says:
Yes a strawman is still a strawman no matter how pretty someone tries to paint it. Morning after pill = after conception. (well not technically, but it is after sexual intercourse) Now you're getting it. Fellatio is only cannibalism if you believe a sperm can form into a zygote *without* the aid of an egg. Nope, still not getting it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 5:47:25 PM PDT
C. Batty says:
Morning after pills work by PREVENTING conception.

Posted on Jun 14, 2012 5:51:14 PM PDT
Kevin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 5:51:28 PM PDT
Roger says:
Yes I know that, thank you. What I don't know is what it will take for you to admit that the vasectomy argument was a fallacy AND that sperm are not people.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 5:54:40 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 14, 2012 6:15:09 PM PDT
"fellatio is cannibalism "

Sometimes. If its done right.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 6:09:27 PM PDT
MisterTee says:
<sperm are not people>

The Supreme Court ruled that sperm are corporations.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 6:15:36 PM PDT
Which would explain all the sperm donations.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  17
Total posts:  75
Initial post:  Jun 14, 2012
Latest post:  Jun 18, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions