Quote:
Originally Posted by Fly Rod
Jim here is one for U..."A man conquers woman he is a king ...what is a woman?
If she's good looking enough she might become his queen. If not, she might be whatever the men that are conquered become.
jim I am a conservative...I do not belive in the dems or repubs...when it comes to any vote I'm an udecided
What is it that you want to conserve?
U must be a strict catholic...after what has gone on over the years with the catholics ....praying on kids....banging women and still talking about the cloth....let it go
Jim answered that pretty well.
I believe in women rights and the repubs do not agree
|
Women's rights are mostly about equal rights, which repubs do agree with. Specific "rights" which apply to her gender can be tricky. Other than abortion and birth control I can't think of any off-hand though there must be some. There are many things that women don't have a legal "right" to do which also apply to men. Jim mentioned one. Prostitution, in most states, is another. Then there are the everyday laws like murder, child molestation (doesn't happen only in Catholic churches), robbery, mayhem, suicide bombing (for those who Sea Dangles sees as talibans), spousal abuse, etc. There seems to be an equal support for these restrictions by Dems and Repubs.
The only real sticking point difference is abortion. Firstly, in the proposition of when life begins. Secondly, when is it proper to extinguish that life. Thirdly, in the perception of whose body and whose rights are in question. And finally, which level of government has jurisdiction.
The first seems to have no definitive answer. Obviously, killing innocent human beings, is a form of murder. I don't think that is in dispute. But scientific advancement has displaced nature in the ease of making a "choice." The so-called viability argument is specious. Saying that a fetus can be destroyed until the point that it becomes "viable" can lead to an extention of that point to years beyond birth. Newborn babies are not "viable" without support. Neither are toddlers nor most pre-teens. Society demands that they be cared for and nurtured until later in life.
The second, when it is proper to kill, is highly contentious. Partial birth abortion is heinous in the eyes of most. The slaughter of babies who survive abortion is also, though apparently less so for some.
The third contention, "whose body"
has more facets than the surface appearance. Obviously, the sperm that fertilizes the egg does not belong to the woman. And the fetus is not actually a part of the woman's body. It is a distinct being with its own genetic code. All three beings, the woman, the man, and the fetus, are part of the same process and each, presumably, have equal rights. That the courts have given the totality of "rights" to the woman is arbitrary. And treating the fetus as if it were some alien inhabiting the woman's body because it is a distinct being and therefor susceptible to her choice of removal would have validity if pregnancy were considered a disease. History and nature have spoken differently on that matter.
In extreme cases where the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, that is akin, in some degree, to a disease, and a choice must obviously be made. In the case of conception by rape, philosophic argument may trump life. Above my pay grade stuff. The vast majority of abortions are of neither category.
And last, constitutionally, the jurisdiction should be state not federal. That is what most repubs believe and the most relevant legal difference between the two parties.