Should Women allow the Government and religion to come between them and their doctor?

nor should men

her body, her choice.

I'll just save everyone a lot of time...


I probably should have been aborted some time ago, if only that pesky Goverment stayed out of it.

I would love to see a woman tell the governments to go fornicate themselves.

Obviously you are only considering the things you think the GOP is doing, which you think are wrong. But what about ObamaCare, that does the same thing.

yep

I second

Restricting abortion is not a "war on women," genius.

Supporting legalized abortion, in contrast, is most definitely a war on unborn babies.

Unborn babies are human beings. Neonatal technology clearly tells us that.

Unless, that is, you're prepared to argue that pregnant women have two hearts, two brains, two torsos, two blood types, and two sets of DNA.

agreed!

Jen, you conservative control freak, restricting abortion is a "war on women" specifically in the Reproductive rights issues. If you enjoyed sex more you'd be more for Women's rights and not such a closet case.

I do not lie! It is to difficult to keep such material straight.

"GOP passed no less than 1,100 bills to restrict abortion access and affordable health care in 2011 alone"
..Show me some!

"The war on women has been vicious, relentless, and 100% partisan."
..Ok! I can agree. Only thing is that the actors on this subject are the Demoncrats.

First of all there were nowhere near 1,100 bills restricting abortion passed into law. Second using the term GOP infers a national initiative. The few actually passed were done by states and the standards for states is different than the Federal Government. Add to that not all of the 135 restrict access. The article refers to bans on abortions but even that is not true.

Sorry I did the research. The FACT that 1,100 did not pass into law is contained within the link YOU provided. "By year’s end, 135 of these provisions had been enacted in 36 states" http://www.guttmacher.org/med...

Perhaps it would be appropriate to repeat to you, "Do your own research before continuing to spew ignorant lies."

Now! Can you provide evidence that these 135 bills were "written and passed by Republicans"? Of course that is predicated on your assertion that it happened, which implies that you are aware of where these happened and the vote totals. A response of "look it up yourself", means that you do not know anything other than what is in the "Liberal Talking Points" register.

So you admit that you can not provide REAL evidence to support your claim. Or even admit that your assertion is refuted by the source you DID use?

The so-called "war of women" is a construct of the Demoncrats for the sole purpose of demonizing their opponents. Since they can not stand for election on their record.

The ignorance is not on my part. You have no evidence of a true war on women. Laws passed to protect new life are not evidence in support of your claim. The War on Women remains a Demoncrat construct.

BTW state legislatures do not have quite the same restrictions as the Feds.

"Why" is not a wear down tactic, even though I did not use that question, it is an attempt to learn something.

To: Skeptikat to DuncanO... 4 hours ago New!

Chicken!

Denial? Is that the left talking point of record for anyone that disagrees or thinks for themselves.

"I'm in favor of protecting the lives of women, and protecting their ability to plan their future and control their destiny."
..Protecting their live has little to do with the new life growing. Controlling their destiny and planing their future is something that should concern women long before they get pregnant. As for having no say, I am supposed to keep any opinion I might have to myself? Do you say the same to men that agree with you. If not I find that hypocritical. There exist times when I also have a vested interest in the issue.

Your solid facts may be such in your mind but they do not rise to the level of actual evidence as they are little more than your opinion. Solid facts I can support.

"a backlash against christianity is brewing in this country". Would be wrong and a repudiation of the founding principles of the nation. I don't take well to threats BTW. What threat? This one; "Let me warn you, and you had best take heed ...Religious tolerance is hanging by a thread ... you're fond of your church, you'd better ... shellack it in Kevlar paint." At the very least that is intolerance writ large. But then the left in not well know for its tolerance.
I do not "interfere in the personal lives of others, (or) impose ... dogma on the rest of society"

If it is their religion, sure.
If they don't believe it, why would they care?

I live in the United States, I know that God exists, and I work for a smaller, less intrusive government. What rights are you protecting? I suspect they are only desires, not rights.
We have the individual rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but we are not guaranteed to get from the government everything we desire. Happiness must be the product of one's own pursuit. The government can never make you happy.

I want the government out of religion - that's what the Constitution refers to.
Separation of Church and State is just one interpretation.

and they should also stop asking them the pay for it!

no i would rather people stood up and took some personal responsibility. but all this changes nothing. i still stand by if you don't want anyone to have a say. then stop asking them to finance it.

i don't and i am not catholic.that being said.i think companys should have a choice whether they provide things like birth control or Viagra to there employees.through company insurance.and still the only sure way to guarantee no one else besides them have any say in it is to pay for it themselves.

If this concerns the life of a baby gestating in the woman's womb, yes. That child is defenseless and to claim it's "part of the woman's body" is denying scientific fact. That is a separate human being, not a piece of meat or extra set of body parts. Women are no more allowed to murder another human being than anyone else, or shouldn't be anyway. Period. You can go on and on about "right to choose", but there are many personal choices people are prosecuted for that do in fact only affect themselves. When you go down this road of claiming that human baby is not really a human baby, you get into discussions like killing infants before a certain age or the elderly past a certain age because they're considered no longer "viable", contributing members of society. This is just a symptom of the degradation of a society that has put its faith in the fables of the modern day "wise men" that tell them they are the product of "billions and billions of years" of chance mutations, a fantasy far greater in scope than believing that a higher power created them.

Yeah, it's creepy religious dogma that human beings reproduce human beings, not globs of cells that miraculously transform into humans as they pass through a woman's vagina. Get real.

The human life gestating in the woman's body is not -her body-. That new life has a separate, unique DNA, is a human, whether it "looks like one" at whatever stage or not matters not. The reality is, that is not part of the woman's body, but is simply a life that is dependent on the mother until he/she reaches a self-supporting stage. The whole claim of "a woman's right to choose what to do with her body" is bogus through and through. It's a straw man used to excuse ending a human life.

If they so choose.

Is this question about abortion? If it is, the government should come between women and their doctor to protect innocent living human beings from being killed.