CreateDebate


Debate Info

42
25
Yes, they are being targeted No, they are making it up
Debate Score:67
Arguments:32
Total Votes:74
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph

Debate Creator

addltd(4225) pic



Is the "War on Women" real?

There have been a recent number of articles written on the "War on Women".

Are the Republicans in melt down mode, or are the Democrats making it all up?

 

Here are a couple of links which point out it may just be real!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-war-on-women-or-a-battle-for-their-votes/2012/04/05/gIQAjb9RyS_story.html

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/03/gop-having-woman-troubles/49768/

Yes, they are being targeted

Side Score: 42
VS.

No, they are making it up

Side Score: 25
2 points

While I believe I am more of a republican than anything else, I am ashamed to say that I think there might be some validity to the hype.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they are being targeted
7 points

“I think these are very precarious times for women, it seems. So many of your rights are under assault,” he told the crowd of mostly women. “I’ll tell you this: Contribute your money to people who speak out on your behalf, because the other side — my side — has a lot of it. And you need to send your own message. You need to remind people that you vote, you matter, and that they can’t succeed without your help.

- Rep. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.), co-sponsor of the Equal Rights Amendment

You know it's bad when even Republicans are practically admitting to a war on women. Then, when there are further limits on women's healthcare, restrictions or ends to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers funding, bombed abortion clinics, repealments of acts that support equal treatment between genders (Equal Rights Act), repealments of acts that fight domestic violence (Violence against Women Act), writing acts that force women to have medical instruments stuck up their vagina's and make them listen to descriptions of a small lump no larger than a fingernail.

All of these just add to the assumed position of lower pay for women, a male controlled world, and a far from objective media. Then add to a Republican line up that would all ban abortion, repeal contraception availability, and take away maternity leave rights. There's spectacular instances of misinformation among the Republican party.

I know where I stand. ... And that took fucking ages

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they are being targeted
5 points

Clearly you didn't do any research otherwise you would have known facts such as 'medical instruments up the vagina' never happened.

That shows how transvaginal ultrasounds are in the Texan legislature, and have been being enforced for about half a year.

This shows what a transvaginal ultrasound is. That looks like a medical instrument up someones vagina to me.

Although as an interesting side note, I could spin probably about half of the crap you have listed here as a 'War on Men.'

I can also say that the moon is made of cheese, that I'm 450, and that my dick's 20 ft. Saying something means nothing, refute my arguments individually.

Lets just say that declaring war on 51% of the voting public isn't in the best interest of any political party. However... Lying your butt off to make the other person look like they are... Now that makes sense!

I spent a long time citing every single claim I made, the least you could do is to actually refute them properly, instead of simply saying that I'm lying.

Also, interesting fact for the day, in US history, as GOP candidates have campaigned for presidential nomination, at least one has always had increased approval ratings through the campaign. Except 2012. As I talked about how Obama has twice as high approval than Romney, it does fit in that what the Republicans are doing is not in their own best interest.

Only the truly stupid will believe you.

As opposed to your well constructed and well supported argument? Good ad hominem.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they are being targeted
5 points

It doesn't matter if you think a transvaginal ultrasound is not a big deal. In the cases with which the bill is concerned, it's not for the benefit of the woman. I think it's pretty clear that it's done to try to make the abortion process more difficult and uncomfortable, and try to guilt her out of it. But even if you don't agree with that, I'm sure you can agree that there's no reason to add meaningless extra shit to a medical procedure.

Paternity fraud is currently legal, men have no reproductive rights... ect. War on Men... right

Okay, I'm going to tell you something shocking so I hope you're sitting down. This debate is not about men. Crazy, right?! Hijacking the conversation to make it about men is annoying, inappropriate, and way too common when people are trying to talk about concerns facing women. Go make a topic called 'Is the "War on Men" real?' if you want to talk about that.

I'm not saying that the things you cited are not true. It just doesn't equal a war against women

What would equal a war on women as far as you're concerned? Be specific.

In my home state alone, there are bills in existence that would 1) declare a fetus to exist 2 weeks before it's even conceived, in order to push more pregnancies out of the legal abortion window, 2) allow an employer to ask a woman why she's taking birth control pills, and refuse to cover her pills if she's taking it for pregnancy prevention (or, presumably, if she refuses to answer), and 3) protect doctors who lie to a pregnant woman about problems with her fetus, even problems that could endanger her life or the life of the fetus. Some of them will never actually happen, but they've made it this far and they would make life more difficult for women,and by extension their partners and families.

1. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/us-arizona-abortion-idUSBRE82R1D020120328

2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/arizona-contraception-bill-loses_n_1385917.html

3. http://rt.com/usa/news/lawsuit-arizona-birth-abortion-149/

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they are being targeted
3 points

I have sold ultrasounds before and those probes are used nearly every day for willing patients. Have you ever seen the suction aspirator used in abortions? It's about 10 times more invasive. Would anyone bitch if the probe was used to find the babies head so the brains could be sucked out more easily?

The major difference between this is that one is necessary, while another isn't. Yes, women may need to endure invasive procedures in a hospital. No, they should not have to endure any more than is necessary.

Paternity fraud is currently legal, men have no reproductive rights... ect. War on Men... right?

Really? I've never heard of a man being told that he cannot legally have a child, or that he has to undergo transvaginal ultrasounds when he wants an abortion. You're making an argument that doesn't exist, holds no basis, and isn't relevant to the topic.

It just doesn't equal a war against women.

Really? Attacking womens healthcare providers, both in Washington, and with bombs, restricting womens rights, forcing medical instruments up their vaginas for no reason, attacking health care laws that give them closer to equal rights, among all the other things I listed, and many more, don't equal a war on women? To me, it's just as much of a war as is legally possible.

If I provided a bunch of links to Fox News would you consider that a quality source? Most of the links you cited were biased to the point of being silly. Cite something objective or don't bother.

No, because a) fox is often wrong b) their analysis is obviously biased, and they do omit information, but that doesn't mean that the facts that they do write are wrong, and that's what I wanted to use them for, to prove the facts. I, and you should also, make my own judgements based on that.

Republicans just don't get very excited about Romney. The same way Democrats didn't get very excited about Kerry and the results should be similar.

Republican women only though? Such a gap is ridiculous, and if his current policies continue, it will only grow. How can you deny that such a difference between gender is insignificant, without discounting womens opinion?

Democrats are just in panic mode trying to hang onto power as they sink us into a European style debt crisis.

Democrats are just in panic mode trying to mop up after Republican mistakes - both social and economic.

Feminists respond to the idea of a 'war on women' the same way Santorum voters respond to bible verses... so what better way to whip up your base.

Again, that depends on whether or not you deny that there is a war on women or not, no point arguing it until we are agreed either way.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they are being targeted
2 points

However, I can understand where they are coming from in wanting to provide women more information before undergoing this procedure.

Because forcing women to be (unnecessarily) scanned, through their vagina, and then forced to listen to a description of this scan, is completely justifiable.

Why is that Ok?

I don't think it's OK that that extent. I believe that women should be the first person to choose, they do have to birth the child, and face all of the responsibility for it, but I don't feel that the man should be ignored. However, as Zombee said, it's irrelevant to the debate.

It is absolutely asinine to try and apply the actions of mentally unstable individuals (bombing) to a political party. Muslims tend to vote Democrat, by your argument Democrats must have planned and executed the 9-11 attacks. It is a false argument.

Because I said so many times that the Republicans were the only ones 'fighting the war'. Connecting 'Muslims', a group that lives in all countries, and is about 1.5 billion strong, to 15 people that committed a terrorist act, is massively insulting and uneducated.

Again, those against abortion are not against women... they see themselves as protecting human life. I can respect that as a goal.

Hitler was trying to protect his constituents. That does not license him to commit the terrible acts that he did. You can support the goal, without supporting the means to such a thing - the war.

Fox is no more wrong than the crap you posted. Are the "facts" really facts if only the ones helping your argument are shown?

I used the sources because they were all linked to on a blog I follow. They proved the statement that I posted originally, in my first post. I'm sure I could find alternate sources, and I will do so if you find sources that imply that they're wrong.

That gap goes both ways. Which way men vote determines who wins an election. Democrats lost to Reagan and both Bush Sr and Jr, because of the male vote. Obama cleared a huge victory by wining over men. That may continue, but one thing is for sure the Democratic party needs to give up the gender war.

The gap does not go both ways. Men are split evenly between the two parties, women are casting the deciding vote currently. They are 50% of the voters, after all. Implying that men run the elections is nothing but sexist, and does not help your claims of impartial.

That strikes me as very naive. This is a Democratic political strategy designed to convince their base to show up and vote. This is why they are forced to focus so hard on birth control issues that they know will cause a stir with religious people.

Yes, because the Republican quote I used is obviously a Democratic political strategy. As is the Republicans policies. The Republicans have never been this extreme, they have moved from moderate conservatives, to radicals. They're trying to appeal to the extreme right, but they've lost out on the moderate vote (1 & 2).

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they are being targeted
2 points

It isn't justifiable, but is killing a baby any better... so who's right?

This isn't an abortion debate. If what they're doing is wrong, intentional, and continuous, then many would consider that a war.

Just admit that your stance is hypocritical. If Republicans are waging a war on women... then Democrats are waging a war on men. If facts show you wrong... just call them irrelevant. How are you any better than a Republican?

I've never supported the Democrats in this debate. They do many things that I disagree with, but luckily, as I am not an American, this is not a major part of my life. So, if you agree with my points, then I am right, regardless of the Democrats position. However, their actions are far less frequent and extreme, I'd consider it more of a skirmish.

This is the problem with the Bipartisan political system, it just encourages such a divide in society, where you're either one or the other. It does not make for good rule.

... So what exactly was the point of putting a link to an abortion clinic bombing in your list of Republican attacks on women? There are about 1 billion or more Christians in the world with some in nearly every country. Are you insulting and ignorant?

Because the war is fought not only in the legal system, but separately, on the ground. The bombing is perhaps the most powerful example of the 'war', to ignore it is foolish.

And I've never mentioned Christians in this debate. Your strawman arguments mean nothing.

He wasn't protecting his constituents he was increasing his own power and control.

Exactly what the Republicans are doing, I feel. However, it's redundant, I was simply proving that your allegory was ridiculous. The issue is what's happening to women in America right now, and at what point you feel the actions taken appropriate a war.

Open your mind and read more sources. I'm an active member of both political parties and they both have some very good and very bad ideas. Our country needs fewer talking heads and more free thinkers.

Nice to know you judge me based on my stance on a single issue. I do read sources from all spectrums, I just read more of what I agree with, as does everyone I know. It also happens that interest groups write more about things that affect them. I'm far from a 'talking head', I understand exactly what I'm saying, and my opinions are my own.

And being in the middle does not make you right, what if one of them's wrong? Then you're just half wrong.

It isn't sexist... it's fact based on exit polls. Women have increasingly voted Democrat since 1980, but only twice has that changed the outcome of the election.

How you phrased it is definitely sexist. In a debate over womens rights, and the action being taken against them, it is dangerous to speak in such a way. Also, does that mean that you admit that 'the gap does not go both ways'?

Just as Republicans are saying that there is a 'War on Religion' is disingenuous.

Finding some slight parallel does not make them the same. It's hardly relevant, but I will argue that (on a separate debate) if you so wish.

Fake emotional outrage over something seems to be the drug of choice in the media. If you continue to take it seriously... it doesn't make you correct... it just makes you another addict.

You assume that I cannot think for myself, and follow the media completely. As I have said before, I rarely read those articles, I simply look at them for proof that these things happen. I make my own conclusions, and often go against what I am told by the media. I could just as easily say that you are an addict of the right wing media, telling you that there is no war on women. Ignoring the hard facts makes you wrong, and that is what you seem to be doing.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they are being targeted
3 points

I don't agree that the law was passed because anti-abortion people hate women.

What do you think the motivation is?

My point is that neither are real.

If you're trying to say the discrimination faced by men and women is of the same severity, you are ridiculous.

I'm not hijacking the topic...

Yes, you are. It's a comparison that shows a lack of understanding about sexism, and if we had it your way, we'd be off on a tangent about whether or not men are oppressed as much as women and I'm not at all interested in getting into that.

A war on women would require gender based legislation to remove women from work, politics, and family law.

So a war on women's rights doesn't exist unless a bunch of politicians basically stand up and say, "Hey, I hate women and I don't want to see them working or controlling their own bodies." Is that right?

Few politicians are going to go directly, specifically, and openly go after women, even if they do actually hate them. They would not last long. Instead, they might do something like...I don't know, slowly erode their choices and freedoms while disguising it as concern for them.

You are exactly correct that anti-abortion laws effect the men who will be fathers, brothers, grandfathers... ect. This isn't JUST against women.

There is literally nothing you could do to hurt women in this country that wouldn't also hurt men. Whatever you're imagining to be a 'real' war on women, if that happened, it would also hurt the men who depend on and care about the women. Saying 'it hurts guys, too' is in no way an argument against the existence of real, institutionalized efforts to make life harder for women.

Are you absolutely certain that you know when human life begins? I'm not.

I can guarantee it doesn't begin 2 weeks before its parents even have sex.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they are being targeted
1 point

Yes and No. "War on Women" is a moniker given to the recent conservative efforts to pass certain laws that further their positions on abortion and contraceptives. The TITLE is 100% political marketing, but saying that there is not a campaign to pass certain laws would be very, very untrue, because that's just how politics works. Parties or groups have an agenda, develop legislation, "test" it somewhere and/or make a concerted effort to have it passed in several places. Everyone does it, because that is how this thing works. It is not a coincidence that immigration laws or gay marriage or abortion laws pop up in clusters. And, yes the current agenda tackles issues that most directly affect women. That is is not condemnation or approval of their position, merely the facts. Titling it "The War on Women" is how those opposed to their positions frame the conservative campaign to incite disdain. Even conservatives will tell you its clever and effective politics. I think we all know that whether or not its true has little effect or no consequence to many people. They will just use it to say conservatives are evil or to say liberals are evil for making this up. And we all go back to reinforcing our insular lives with Fox news and MSNBC.

Is there a planned political and legislative campaign, yes. Is it a "war"? Depends whose side your on. If you like these bills and don't think women have or should have these rights, or that they are not rights at all, then I doubt you view this as a hostile attack. But if you do think they are women's rights and this is aimed at dismantling them, then it is a war.

Maybe "War on what are Women's Rights" is more fair, albeit clumsy.

Edit: Why does this only allow a "No" reply . . .

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they are being targeted
2 points

Yes it is. Women have the right to contraceptive freedom.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they are being targeted
1 point

i totally agree...the q is y women personified on any other when she herself can independently cn do it..just becoz she care for society and religion she led down all her wish n tke the path which lend in front of her and without giving second thought what she is doing it she just do it.. sad but true. and this is being done by again the womens who themself have went through such pain...

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they are being targeted
2 points

yes you are on the right way and i hope you are looking well after that because YouTube SEO Services (http://trickydocs.com)

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they are being targeted
1 point

I think the republicans are waging a war against women. I'm female and I don't like the fact that the GOP is trying to pass law that would strip away a womans right to choose or that when they had a panel about womens health the contributors were all men, none of them doctors. THE REPUBLICANS SHOULD LEAVE WOMENS HEALTH ALONE!!

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they are being targeted
2 points

Yes, the states and Republicans in the Congress tried to restricted the access to abortion and contraception to women because of they are supposed to protect embyros. And they cut the pay for women and increasing the pay for men.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they are being targeted
1 point

Are current republican candidates seeking to reduce or eliminate programs like planned parenthood? YES.

Who uses these programs, not only for birth control but also cancer screenings etc.,? WOMEN

Are MALE politicians seeking (especially in certain states) to enact legislation regarding how WOMEN are able to obtain contraception (not only for birth control)? YES

Have MALE politicians attempted to enact legislation such as "vaginal probing" in order to go through with abortion? YES

With MALE politicians making decisions that affect WOMEN'S bodies, without regard for consequence as it does not affect them, then the answer is YES, there is a war on women.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they are being targeted

They wouldn't have that right if some conservatives had their way.

Rick Santorum believes it should be up to the State whether couples can buy contraceptives (He believes the Griswold vs Connecticut case was decided wrongly)

Additionally, if the life begins at conception laws pass, many forms of contraception will become illegal.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they are being targeted

This is just ridiculous to even think that there is a such thing as War on Women.

2 years ago | Side: No, they are making it up
2 points

Its propaganda against republican's insistence on a particular set of interpretations of the bible being incorporated into Law, and also an excellent use of inverting their own propaganda against them.

It isn't so much a war on women, but opposition to the last ditch efforts to hold on to traditional "family values".

I dislike propaganda, it is always one sided or bias. Yes, the substance of the "war on women" is real, but it's characterization, symbolism, and so on is just the perception of a particular group.

2 years ago | Side: No, they are making it up
3 points

It's an election year, and these idiots need to fight for their phoney baloney jobs.

Democrats like to think that women favor them and they need to make them AFRAID of Republicans. It's the same reason they do their absolute best to demonize conservative women like Palin. The idea of a conservative female leader like Thatcher gives them night terrors.

If you look at the "war on women" what do they have? The fact that Republicans are in favor of religious freedom? Hey, if they really want to help women... maybe offer free birth control from Community Health Clinics... which would help 30 million women. Nope... they could care less. Instead they want to force the Catholic church to do it. Why? Because they are MORE INTERESTED in stomping on Religious freedom than actually helping women.

Vaginal probes... C'mon. Those legislators are not doctors. They had no clue that might be required... and when they did they wrote the law with an opt out clause. If you are going to stick a vacuum cleaner up your vagina to suck a baby's brains out... I don't think an ultrasound is too much to ask for.... especially if you are offered an opt out.

Let's face facts. This isn't a war on women. The Democrats are waging a War on Intelligence.

2 years ago | Side: No, they are making it up
-1 points

So much partisan hackery there is no place to really begin. Clearly you didn't do any research otherwise you would have known facts such as 'medical instruments up the vagina' never happened.

Although as an interesting side note, I could spin probably about half of the crap you have listed here as a 'War on Men.'

Lets just say that declaring war on 51% of the voting public isn't in the best interest of any political party. However... Lying your butt off to make the other person look like they are... Now that makes sense!

Only the truly stupid will believe you.

2 years ago | Side: No, they are making it up
2 points

I have been corrected. The Texas legislature has a pair of giant brass ones. Why no media attention on this? Could it possibly be that it's because this isn't a swing state and Democrats don't care unless they can exploit the situation somehow?

I have sold ultrasounds before and those probes are used nearly every day for willing patients. Have you ever seen the suction aspirator used in abortions? It's about 10 times more invasive. Would anyone bitch if the probe was used to find the babies head so the brains could be sucked out more easily?

I can also say that the moon is made of cheese, that I'm 450, and that my dick's 20 ft. Saying something means nothing, refute my arguments individually.

Paternity fraud is currently legal, men have no reproductive rights... ect. War on Men... right?

I spent a long time citing every single claim I made, the least you could do is to actually refute them properly, instead of simply saying that I'm lying.

Also, interesting fact for the day, in US history, as GOP candidates have campaigned for presidential nomination, at least one has always had increased approval ratings through the campaign. Except 2012. As I talked about how Obama has twice as high approval than Romney, it does fit in that what the Republicans are doing is not in their own best interest.

I'm not saying that the things you cited are not true. It just doesn't equal a war against women. You cited several anti abortion actions... a failed bomb that was denounced by Republicans, a pay law that allowed employees to sue over every single paycheck... ect. Even the Violence Against Women Act is a sham article as Republicans are trying to bring out their own version... except this one doesn't allow for violations of a mans constitutional rights. If I provided a bunch of links to Fox News would you consider that a quality source? Most of the links you cited were biased to the point of being silly. Cite something objective or don't bother.

Republicans just don't get very excited about Romney. The same way Democrats didn't get very excited about Kerry and the results should be similar.

Democrats are just in panic mode trying to hang onto power as they sink us into a European style debt crisis. Feminists respond to the idea of a 'war on women' the same way Santorum voters respond to bible verses... so what better way to whip up your base.

2 years ago | Side: No, they are making it up
1 point

The major difference between this is that one is necessary, while another isn't. Yes, women may need to endure invasive procedures in a hospital. No, they should not have to endure any more than is necessary.

Abortions already cost $500... I personally don't think anything that drives up that cost is a good idea.

However, I can understand where they are coming from in wanting to provide women more information before undergoing this procedure. It's pretty much a death sentence. Imagine it like applying the death penalty to someone without providing a trial.

Either way it isn't about women it's about children... and at what age you can legally kill them.

Really? I've never heard of a man being told that he cannot legally have a child, or that he has to undergo transvaginal ultrasounds when he wants an abortion. You're making an argument that doesn't exist, holds no basis, and isn't relevant to the topic.

As a man I am told that my choice to become a father begins and ends with the choice to have sex. How is that not a double standard? If I pay child support for 10 years and then find out the child is not mine... not only must I still continue to pay... it is also 100% legal to have fraudulently named me as the father. Why is that Ok? Democrats have fought EVERY attempt to change that law. Does that mean it's a 'war on men'? Nope.

Really? Attacking womens healthcare providers, both in Washington, and with bombs, restricting womens rights, forcing medical instruments up their vaginas for no reason, attacking health care laws that give them closer to equal rights, among all the other things I listed, and many more, don't equal a war on women? To me, it's just as much of a war as is legally possible.

It is absolutely asinine to try and apply the actions of mentally unstable individuals (bombing) to a political party. Muslims tend to vote Democrat, by your argument Democrats must have planned and executed the 9-11 attacks. It is a false argument.

Again, those against abortion are not against women... they see themselves as protecting human life. I can respect that as a goal.

No, because a) fox is often wrong b) their analysis is obviously biased, and they do omit information, but that doesn't mean that the facts that they do write are wrong, and that's what I wanted to use them for, to prove the facts. I, and you should also, make my own judgements based on that.

Fox is no more wrong than the crap you posted. Are the "facts" really facts if only the ones helping your argument are shown?

There are always two sides to every story.

The real story here is that there are too many people like you who only understand a caricature of what the other side to an argument is. It's easier to disagree with something you don't know anything about. Much easier than being forced to think.

Republican women only though? Such a gap is ridiculous, and if his current policies continue, it will only grow. How can you deny that such a difference between gender is insignificant, without discounting womens opinion?

That gap goes both ways. Which way men vote determines who wins an election. Democrats lost to Reagan and both Bush Sr and Jr, because of the male vote. Obama cleared a huge victory by wining over men. That may continue, but one thing is for sure the Democratic party needs to give up the gender war.

Democrats are just in panic mode trying to mop up after Republican mistakes - both social and economic.

Both parties have created a giant mess. The Republicans are getting their feet held to the fire by their base for overspending during Bush. I have not seen a similar trend from Democrats so far, but they have only been in power since 2008... it may take a few years.

Again, that depends on whether or not you deny that there is a war on women or not, no point arguing it until we are agreed either way.

So you think it's just a coincidence that 9 months from a big presidential election Republicans suddenly decide to open up a 'War on Women'?

That strikes me as very naive. This is a Democratic political strategy designed to convince their base to show up and vote. This is why they are forced to focus so hard on birth control issues that they know will cause a stir with religious people.

2 years ago | Side: No, they are making it up
1 point

It doesn't matter if you think a transvaginal ultrasound is not a big deal. In the cases with which the bill is concerned, it's not for the benefit of the woman. I think it's pretty clear that it's done to try to make the abortion process more difficult and uncomfortable, and try to guilt her out of it. But even if you don't agree with that, I'm sure you can agree that there's no reason to add meaningless extra shit to a medical procedure.

I completely agree that it just adds extra cost. I think it should be offered but not forced. However, I don't agree that the law was passed because anti-abortion people hate women.

Okay, I'm going to tell you something shocking so I hope you're sitting down. This debate is not about men. Crazy, right?! Hijacking the conversation to make it about men is annoying, inappropriate, and way too common when people are trying to talk about concerns facing women. Go make a topic called 'Is the "War on Men" real?' if you want to talk about that.

My point is that neither are real. There might be a small amount of women out there who hate men, and men who hate women... but neither party has an interest in legislating that.

I'm not hijacking the topic I'm showing you how silly your argument is. The point of these laws is never to hate women... just like the Violence Against Women Act isn't about hating men... despite the fact that it violated the constitution rights of men accused of crimes against women.

Basically, if you want to argue that Republicans hate women... then you must also admit that Democrats hate men. Get it?

What would equal a war on women as far as you're concerned? Be specific.

In my home state alone, there are bills in existence that would 1) declare a fetus to exist 2 weeks before it's even conceived, in order to push more pregnancies out of the legal abortion window, 2) allow an employer to ask a woman why she's taking birth control pills, and refuse to cover her pills if she's taking it for pregnancy prevention (or, presumably, if she refuses to answer), and 3) protect doctors who lie to a pregnant woman about problems with her fetus, even problems that could endanger her life or the life of the fetus. Some of them will never actually happen, but they've made it this far and they would make life more difficult for women,and by extension their partners and families

A war on women would require gender based legislation to remove women from work, politics, and family law.

You are exactly correct that anti-abortion laws effect the men who will be fathers, brothers, grandfathers... ect. This isn't JUST against women. The last time I saw statistics only about 20% or less of the female population uses abortion... and of that over 60% of them are black.

While I believe the issue of abortion affects women disproportionately more compared to men I'm not willing to say that making it illegal would be attack against women.

Are you absolutely certain that you know when human life begins? I'm not.

2 years ago | Side: No, they are making it up
1 point

Because forcing women to be (unnecessarily) scanned, through their vagina, and then forced to listen to a description of this scan, is completely justifiable.

It isn't justifiable, but is killing a baby any better... so who's right?

Personally... I'd just tell the lady she can do as she likes the consequences are hers to bear. I would also provide a legal mechanism for men to have some choice... though not to the extent of forced pregnancies or abortions.

I don't think it's OK that that extent. I believe that women should be the first person to choose, they do have to birth the child, and face all of the responsibility for it, but I don't feel that the man should be ignored. However, as Zombee said, it's irrelevant to the debate.

Just admit that your stance is hypocritical. If Republicans are waging a war on women... then Democrats are waging a war on men. If facts show you wrong... just call them irrelevant. How are you any better than a Republican?

Because I said so many times that the Republicans were the only ones 'fighting the war'. Connecting 'Muslims', a group that lives in all countries, and is about 1.5 billion strong, to 15 people that committed a terrorist act, is massively insulting and uneducated.

... So what exactly was the point of putting a link to an abortion clinic bombing in your list of Republican attacks on women? There are about 1 billion or more Christians in the world with some in nearly every country. Are you insulting and ignorant?

Hitler was trying to protect his constituents. That does not license him to commit the terrible acts that he did. You can support the goal, without supporting the means to such a thing - the war.

Hitler was a pro-abortion socialist. He had a 106% tax on the wealthy, nationalized many companies, and preached hate against a religion. He wasn't protecting his constituents he was increasing his own power and control.

I would say that you are correct in the idea that the state should not be dictating your personal choices. That is for sure where most Democrats and many Republicans go wrong.

I used the sources because they were all linked to on a blog I follow. They proved the statement that I posted originally, in my first post. I'm sure I could find alternate sources, and I will do so if you find sources that imply that they're wrong.

Open your mind and read more sources. I'm an active member of both political parties and they both have some very good and very bad ideas. Our country needs fewer talking heads and more free thinkers.

The gap does not go both ways. Men are split evenly between the two parties, women are casting the deciding vote currently. They are 50% of the voters, after all. Implying that men run the elections is nothing but sexist, and does not help your claims of impartial.

It isn't sexist... it's fact based on exit polls. Women have increasingly voted Democrat since 1980, but only twice has that changed the outcome of the election. The reason is because fewer of them vote, and they tend to be less interested in politics. Even so, Bush lost to Gore by 11% and still won. How can that be? Simple, the most liberal women are concentrated in states that always vote Democrat. As more and more women become single mothers this will slowly change, but for the moment that's how it is. Combine that with the fact that men favor Republicans by about 4% and that makes up the gap.

Yes, because the Republican quote I used is obviously a Democratic political strategy. As is the Republicans policies. The Republicans have never been this extreme, they have moved from moderate conservatives, to radicals. They're trying to appeal to the extreme right, but they've lost out on the moderate vote (1 & 2).

Democrat Emanuel Cleaver thinks it's just an election strategy too.

Just as Republicans are saying that there is a 'War on Religion' is disingenuous.

Fake emotional outrage over something seems to be the drug of choice in the media. If you continue to take it seriously... it doesn't make you correct... it just makes you another addict.

2 years ago | Side: No, they are making it up
1 point

This isn't an abortion debate. If what they're doing is wrong, intentional, and continuous, then many would consider that a war.

I agree that there is a war against abortion. In order to stretch that into a war against women you must show that all women use and support abortion.

I've never supported the Democrats in this debate. They do many things that I disagree with, but luckily, as I am not an American, this is not a major part of my life. So, if you agree with my points, then I am right, regardless of the Democrats position. However, their actions are far less frequent and extreme, I'd consider it more of a skirmish. This is the problem with the Bipartisan political system, it just encourages such a divide in society, where you're either one or the other. It does not make for good rule.

You are supporting the position of the Democratic party. They are the only ones who gain by promoting the idea of a war on women. I would say that women have to most to lose by allowing the Democrats to push this idea. Over time it has the effect of creating a gender war in politics... which is very bad in a two party system, because the other side will get power rather quickly. Most Americans dislike our bipartisan system, but it's near impossible to change.

What country are you from? Uk?

Because the war is fought not only in the legal system, but separately, on the ground. The bombing is perhaps the most powerful example of the 'war', to ignore it is foolish. And I've never mentioned Christians in this debate. Your strawman arguments mean nothing.

If it isn't Republicans or Christians that are fighting against abortion and planting bombs... Who are you accusing of doing this?

That link was just calculated prejudice. You know that extremists exist in every culture, religion, political party. You cannot judge one group by their extremists and not others.

Exactly what the Republicans are doing, I feel. However, it's redundant, I was simply proving that your allegory was ridiculous. The issue is what's happening to women in America right now, and at what point you feel the actions taken appropriate a war.

You have that opposite. Republicans generally stand for free choice and small government. Democrats are the ones who want a guy with a gun to your head telling you what to do and when.

There is nothing bad happening to women in America. The few who want to use abortion as birth control will have some extra hoops to jump through.

Nice to know you judge me based on my stance on a single issue. I do read sources from all spectrums, I just read more of what I agree with, as does everyone I know. It also happens that interest groups write more about things that affect them. I'm far from a 'talking head', I understand exactly what I'm saying, and my opinions are my own.

And being in the middle does not make you right, what if one of them's wrong? Then you're just half wrong.

I don't really judge you at all. You seem like a nice guy, just kind of indoctrinated.

I'm not a fence sitter, I have a strong opinion of what is right and what is wrong. Being in the middle lets you see which side is closer to correct, because politicians are never completely right.

How you phrased it is definitely sexist. In a debate over womens rights, and the action being taken against them, it is dangerous to speak in such a way. Also, does that mean that you admit that 'the gap does not go both ways'?

The easiest way to tell that a person is losing a debate is when they start calling you racist/sexist... ect. It's the only way to continue seeing themselves as standing on the moral high ground.

The gap does go both ways, it just isn't as large for men.

You assume that I cannot think for myself, and follow the media completely. As I have said before, I rarely read those articles, I simply look at them for proof that these things happen. I make my own conclusions, and often go against what I am told by the media. I could just as easily say that you are an addict of the right wing media, telling you that there is no war on women. Ignoring the hard facts makes you wrong, and that is what you seem to be doing.

If you just use the media to reinforce your own stereotypes I would not consider that being open minded.

There really isn't a right wing media beyond Fox News and a few radio talk shows. Everything else is varying degrees of liberal. I noticed on Easter that CNN ran an article about how Jesus never existed. They did the same thing last year on Easter too.

CNN and MSNBC have been the primary news outlets pushing this idea of a 'war on women'.

Women in America are just fine, and in fact Republicans have plans for lowering the cost of birth control, the cost of child care, and a new law to protect female victims of violence. In fact I was recently elected as a delegate to attend their convention at the end of the month and provide some feedback on these particular initiatives... along with some immigration reform stuff.

Anyway... there is no war on women. It's just another election year stunt.

2 years ago | Side: No, they are making it up
2 points

It's all politics. There is no war on women. Just warring parties throwing slander at each other

2 years ago | Side: No, they are making it up
1 point

what kind of dumb-fuck, incorrect, typical democratic campaign slogan is this? there is no war on women at all.

2 years ago | Side: No, they are making it up
2 points

It's an accusation one party made of another and then they made the same accusation right back and it's all mud-slinging really

2 years ago | Side: No, they are making it up
1 point

No, it is political propaganda to keep you occupy from the real issues that are ruining our country.

2 years ago | Side: No, they are making it up
1 point

Not according to the CBS/NY Times poll it isn't. Romney polls better with women than Obama.

2 years ago | Side: No, they are making it up
1 point

NO, A womans Right to chose doesn't negate my right to not pay for her Abortioins,

Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience, which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection for which the public faith is pledged by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

James Madison "Property" in The National Gazette (29 March 1792)

2 years ago | Side: No, they are making it up
1 point

They HAVE that right.

What they DO NOT have the "right" to is to access MY wallet to pay for it!

War on women my ass.

More like a slave revolt and, men are finally starting to say, "Get your big girl panties on and be responsible for your own decisions just like the rest of us adults."

2 years ago | Side: No, they are making it up


About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Help/FAQ
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Bookmarklets
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Advertise
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Twitter
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
Creative Commons
©2014 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.