• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is there a "War on Women" in the United States?

Is there a War on Women?


  • Total voters
    118
Oh so just because none of these things may be banned or happened in reality that doesn't mean that there is an attack on women's reproductive rights. That should have been stated in the OP and made this a debate in fantasy island. You justify attack LOL. So you like that broadcasters call women sluts. Shell we all take off oue shoes and get pregnant. I'm sure you wouldn't see that as attack either.

Shell you all take off oue shoes and get pregnant?

Shell you all leanz Enrish?

hahahahah
 
Oh so just because none of these things may be banned or happened in reality that doesn't mean that there is an attack on women's reproductive rights. That should have been stated in the OP and made this a debate in fantasy island. You justify attack LOL. So you like that broadcasters call women sluts. Shell we all take off oue shoes and get pregnant. I'm sure you wouldn't see that as attack either.

Which brodcaster? Are you refering to Ed Schultz when he called Laura Ingrham a slut on his MSNBC show. Why didn't the sponsers pull their ads from his show I wonder. Oh wait I know why, its because hes a freakin liberal piece of ****.
 
Last edited:
Oh so just because none of these things may be banned or happened in reality that doesn't mean that there is an attack on women's reproductive rights.

You get it....but you don't.

That should have been stated in the OP and made this a debate in fantasy island. You justify attack LOL. So you like that broadcasters call women sluts. Shell we all take off oue shoes and get pregnant. I'm sure you wouldn't see that as attack either.

I'm pretty liberal when it comes to speech. I don't LIKE hearing most women called sluts, but I'm not going to demand women sue or demand the man be fired simply because of what he said.
 
No there is no war on women. If anything we need more woman on woman love...you know for support and such.

If we had more woman on woman love then there would be less women for you, soccerboi.
 
There is an attack on the murder of innocent unborn children.
Do you support the killing of innocents in war? Do you support the death penalty? Do you support abortion if the woman's life is at risk or in cases of incest or rape? I'm more pro life than you ever dreamed of being. The lack of abortions being legal would do more harm to those already alive then you even consider. On top of it you would bitch about supporting all these unwanted kids. How many will you personally adopt 10 or 20. How many adopted kids do you have now. Stop with the nonsense of protecting unborn children.
 
Do you support the killing of innocents in war? Do you support the death penalty? Do you support abortion if the woman's life is at risk or in cases of incest or rape? I'm more pro life than you ever dreamed of being. The lack of abortions being legal would do more harm to those already alive then you even consider. On top of it you would bitch about supporting all these unwanted kids. How many will you personally adopt 10 or 20. How many adopted kids do you have now. Stop with the nonsense of protecting unborn children.

I can tell you he supports the genocide of Muslims...

Pretty pro life if you ask me ;)
 
Umm, I was talking about the POLITICIANS leading the attacks. You know like Romney and Santorum. They have penises. But if you're going to dismiss my comments with "oh that's just a talking point", don't bother responding again because I won't be.

Don't worry, I wouldn't bother trying to have a reasonable discussion with someone who can call this a "patriarchial attack on women..." with a straight face.
 
Not necessarily true. And abortion won't be banned...so it's just another wasted argument.
Just because it won't be banned doesn't mean that the right isn't constantly under attack. That is a women's reproductive right that is under attack. Some women struggle making that decision and yet they are subjected to protests in front of clinics. Many women do not make that decision lightly. It's not a wasted argument at all. There is certainly a chance that the law could be changed. It was changed once before in 1862 when they banned abortion because the process at the time damaged women's ability to reproduce. It had nothing to do with the fetus. It took about 110 years to get the right back.
 
i guess my point is allowing states rights allows choice in itself.like i said if a binch of people were super christian they could move to a state thats super christian,and someone who hates christianity as a view for making laws could move to a state opposing it.

making the federal government choose on these issues is the same as taking away peoples choice to be individual,its like some people like chevy some ford some dodge,but if the federal government had its way everyone would be driving ford and choices would be gone on what a federal government chooses is best for its people without considering what state or local governments view is best.
The problem I have with this argument is that I think any state outlawing abortion or contraception would be violating a woman's right to privacy. In other words, it's unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
My wife is a woman who fights the daily battle against the murder of innocent unborn children. And I support her in this war.
Your avatar is a picture of a person holding a gun and your trying to say you support life. LOL
 
Your avatar is a picture of a person holding a gun and your trying to say you support life. LOL

One can support the 2nd amendment rights of the individual (funny you are rallying so hard for "rights", but perhaps you're willing to turn your back on other rights?) while sincerely for the protection of life.
 
Your avatar is a picture of a person holding a gun and your trying to say you support life. LOL

Why are you laughing when you clearly don't support life either?
 
Do you support the killing of innocents in war? Do you support the death penalty? Do you support abortion if the woman's life is at risk or in cases of incest or rape? I'm more pro life than you ever dreamed of being. The lack of abortions being legal would do more harm to those already alive then you even consider. On top of it you would bitch about supporting all these unwanted kids. How many will you personally adopt 10 or 20. How many adopted kids do you have now. Stop with the nonsense of protecting unborn children.

If abortion was illegal there would still be abortion. And women who murdered their unborn children would be prosecuted and sent to prison for murder. Thats what should be done to murderers. And the quacks who commit homicide by performing abortions will also be prosecuted and sent to prison.
 
Just because it won't be banned doesn't mean that the right isn't constantly under attack. That is a women's reproductive right that is under attack. Some women struggle making that decision and yet they are subjected to protests in front of clinics. Many women do not make that decision lightly. It's not a wasted argument at all. There is certainly a chance that the law could be changed. It was changed once before in 1862 when they banned abortion because the process at the time damaged women's ability to reproduce. It had nothing to do with the fetus. It took about 110 years to get the right back.
Exactly. Attacks don't need to be successful to be attacks.
 
Your avatar is a picture of a person holding a gun and your trying to say you support life. LOL

Thats a picture of me. I served my country. and yes I support protecting the unborn. Do you hate the military too?
 
I say it has everything to do with life. I am against the death penalty and against interventionist wars as well.
The founders of the country even allowed abortion. This entire thing is a silly debate. It is not about life if for any reason you are willing to take the life of a living breathing person. I would believe that if there was never a reason you would take a life.
 
The founders of the country even allowed abortion. This entire thing is a silly debate. It is not about life if for any reason you are willing to take the life of a living breathing person. I would believe that if there was never a reason you would take a life.
Again, that's not a fair accusation. One could easily argue that there is just and unjust killing and that abortion is unjust while other forms of killing (like self-defense) are just.
 
Your avatar is a picture of a person holding a gun and your trying to say you support life. LOL

poor poor katie,cant you just see the world doesnt bend over to kiss your ass on what you believe?

the world is made of many viewpoints,ill tell you one shocking,there re more women against abortion than for it.even women that go through with abortion to most of them its the most heart breaking decision ever,and it would only make sense that women are more pro life since women tend to be more nurturing and supportive of new life.

when someone says ban abortion i say no,when someone throws abortion in my face and says its womens rights,forst thing that comes to mind is the majority of those backing that claim are men,and i think about a bunch of men fighting for the right to force their women to get an abortion free of charge to avoid being a responsible man.
 
Do you want to choose who dies. Are you playing god?
I would also have cancer cells removed as unwanted tissue growing in my body. Those cancer cells are life do you want people with cancer to remove them? That cancer is just trying to grow.
 
The founders of the country even allowed abortion. This entire thing is a silly debate. It is not about life if for any reason you are willing to take the life of a living breathing person. I would believe that if there was never a reason you would take a life.

Founders allowed slavery too. They also gave us a system we can change so that we may become freer as time goes on.

And your definition is absolutely retarded, BTW. It's based on nothing but bias.
 
I would also have cancer cells removed as unwanted tissue growing in my body. Those cancer cells are life do you want people with cancer to remove them? That cancer is just trying to grow.

/facepalm

You cannot be serious.
 
I would also have cancer cells removed as unwanted tissue growing in my body. Those cancer cells are life do you want people with cancer to remove them? That cancer is just trying to grow.

Oh for ****'s sake, let's not revert to being monkeys please. We can keep arguments at a much higher intellectual level than this.
 
Back
Top Bottom