PDA

View Full Version : Jewish gender segregation campaign turns violent



Qtec
01-01-2012, 06:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Extra Israeli police patrolled the streets of a small town nearJerusalem on Monday after a campaign by ultra-Orthodox Jews to segregate men and women erupted into violence.

<span style="color: #990000">Once again its the religious extremists causing the trouble!</span>

Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said that a man from the town ofBeit Shemesh was arrested on Monday over an assault on Sunday on a TV crew filming a sign instructing women to cross the street to avoid walking past a synagogue.

Other signs were posted in an ultra-Orthodox neighbourhood telling women to dress “modestly”, meaning long sleeves and calf-length skirts.

The Haaretz newspaper said that the cameraman from commercial station Channel Two was thrown to the ground and his sound recordist grabbed by the throat in the attack by ultra-Orthodox men.

Media said that other journalists were also attacked and a police car stoned.

“A male was arrested and is being questioned in connection with the incident which took place on the Channel Two team,” Rosenfeld told AFP.

“Municipal inspectors have been working in the street taking down posters… Police have stepped up patrols in Beit Shemesh,” he said.

Israeli media said that images shown on Channel Two last week of an ultra-Orthodox man in Beit Shemesh spitting at a woman led to his arrest on Saturday night.

The Jerusalem Post said that he was freed by magistrates on Sunday after being fined and ordered to stay out of Beit Shemesh for a week.

The violence in the town west of Jerusalem came after a wave of incidents elsewhere in Israel in which women have been compelled to sit at the back of segregated buses serving ultra-Orthodox areas or get off, despite court rulings that women may sit where they please.

Women’s rights activists say that the ultra-Orthodox, who constitute around <u>10 percent </u>of Israel’s population, have become increasingly “radical” on the issue of gender segregation and are winning concessions that harm women.

“Discrimination and violence against women, purportedly motivated by religious sensibilities, have spiralled out of control,” the liberal Haaretz said in an editorial on Monday.

“In recent weeks, we have been witness to women attacked for refusing to move to the back of the bus to uphold a policy of gender segregation; women forced out of a venue where elections in a Jerusalem neighbourhood were being held,” it said.

It noted that women had also been barred from taking part in a health ministry prize-giving ceremony and prevented from serving in key military positions “due to the opposition of a growing, increasingly vocal group of religious male soldiers and officers.”

The Maariv newspaper compared the violence in Beit Shemesh to recent attacks by extremist Jewish settlers on Palestinian property, homes and offices of Israeli peace activists and army bases, in protest against demolitions of wildcat settlement outposts.

“It is the exact same story,” it wrote. “Organised gangs, increasing in strength and audacity, of people who do not regard the state laws as the source of authority but rather rely on their various rabbis and peculiar divine voices in their heads.

“This is a culture war, no less.” </div></div>

Sounds like the Tea Baggers!

Q

Soflasnapper
01-01-2012, 08:48 PM
You know, when followers of Islam do this, it is said that this shows their medieval character, radicalism and fanaticism. It's among the litany of alleged transgressions of modernity that all add up to why it's ok to kill such people en masse, because they are backward fanatics.

However, when Jews do this, nobody says it proves anything like that.

Why is that?

Qtec
01-02-2012, 04:27 AM
Max Blumenthal's latest takes us on a shocking and at times bizarre tour of right-wing Pastor John Hagee's annual Washington-Israel Summit, blowing the cover off the Christian Zionist movement in the process. Starring Joe Lieberman, Tom DeLay, Pastor John Hagee, Ambassador Dore Gold and <u>a host of rapture-ready evangelicals praying for Armaggedon.</u> DeLay: Its what I live for (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig)


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For Evangelicals, Supporting Israel Is ‘God’s Foreign Policy’ </div></div> link (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/washington/14israel.html?pagewanted=all)

Nothing can interfere with the master plan for the end of times.

The one who forces Israel to make peace is the anti-Christ!


Q

Qtec
01-02-2012, 04:55 AM
Not all in Israel believe in a Jewish state!

anti-Zionist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDODrMkO7jI&feature=related)

Same people.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">'Judaism Yes, Zionism No': Ultra-Orthodox Jews march against Israel </div></div>

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA5is7IcEqA)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians in the Middle East still shows little sign of a peaceful resolution. But in New York, there's a group of ultra orthodox Jews, who are devoted to the Palestinian struggle. And as Marina Portnaya discovered, they believe an end to the State of Israel is the only solution. </div></div>

Q

LWW
01-02-2012, 05:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You know, when followers of Islam do this, it is said that this shows their medieval character, radicalism and fanaticism. It's among the litany of alleged transgressions of modernity that all add up to why it's ok to kill such people en masse, because they are backward fanatics.

However, when Jews do this, nobody says it proves anything like that.

Why is that? </div></div>

You should be ashamed to have posted that.

Qtec
01-02-2012, 05:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You should be ashamed to have posted that. </div></div>

There you go again.

Why should he be ashamed????? Be SPECIFIC.

Q

LWW
01-02-2012, 06:23 AM
Because it makes a moral equivalence argument betwenn this and radical Islam.

You should be ashamed for defending him on this.

Gayle in MD
01-02-2012, 09:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sounds like the Tea Baggers!

</div></div>

Yep. Sounds like the misogynistic Repiglican Party, aka, The Tea Baggers.
Organized religion is chock full of sicko misogynistic ideas.

Pretty clear which party is against women's rights, everything from the right to use birth control, to trying to weaken the definition of what constitutes rape!

PIGS!

LWW
01-03-2012, 03:48 AM
That was funny.

Qtec
01-03-2012, 07:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Because it makes a moral equivalence argument betwenn this and radical Islam.

</div></div>

BS. All he says is that when Islamic religious extremists want to impose THEIR views/rules on the rest of us, its bad. When the Jews or the Christians want to do it, its looked on differently.

eg,

Right now in the USA there are a bunch of people who want to impose their religious beliefs on the rest concerning abortion.
They say that women don't have control over their own body. They do. How extreme is that?

Its not about the religion. Its about the hypocrisy.

Q

Gayle in MD
01-03-2012, 07:23 AM
Yes, and it's about how the radical and dnagerous religious right in this country, which would love to be able to turn it into a misogynist society, where women are treated like chattle and second class citizens, and have no rights at all.

Part of the Bubba Mentalityno doubt.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Hilarious, and distrubing, that their policies are so contradictory to their supposed intentions.... against abortion, yet they are against sex education, and birth control, and even more disturbing, they are trying to weaken the law against RAPE in an effort to protect rapists from punishment for the crime.

OMG! How does anyone vote for these pigs?

If that doesn't prove their complete lack of common sense, what else could?

G.

eg8r
01-03-2012, 07:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Right now in the USA there are a bunch of people who want to impose their religious beliefs on the rest concerning abortion.
They say that women don't have control over their own body. They do. How extreme is that?
</div></div>Not any more extreme then the drinking age limits.

eg8r

Qtec
01-03-2012, 08:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Right now in the USA there are a bunch of people who want to impose their religious beliefs on the rest concerning abortion.
They say that women don't have control over their own body. They do. How extreme is that?
</div></div>Not any more extreme <u>then</u> the drinking age limits.

eg8r </div></div>

Firstly, its not 'then',its 'than'.



<span style='font-size: 14pt'>If you think <u>FORCING a 14 yr old girl</u>, who has been <u>raped by a family member, to go through with a 9 month pregnancy to have a baby she doesn't want</u> is the equivalent of the imposition of drinking age limits, then you are a total nutjob.</span>

Q

Gayle in MD
01-03-2012, 08:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Right now in the USA there are a bunch of people who want to impose their religious beliefs on the rest concerning abortion.
They say that women don't have control over their own body. They do. How extreme is that?
</div></div>Not any more extreme <u>then</u> the drinking age limits.

eg8r </div></div>

Firstly, its not 'then',its 'than'.



<span style='font-size: 14pt'>If you think <u>FORCING a 14 yr old girl</u>, who has been <u>raped by a family member, to go through with a 9 month pregnancy to have a baby she doesn't want</u> is the equivalent of the imposition of drinking age limits, then you are a total nutjob.</span>

Q </div></div>

Sicko!

eg8r
01-03-2012, 08:47 AM
LOL, now you are dumb enough to start referencing grammar. Don't make me laugh.

As far as me being a nutjob for not using only extreme examples to discuss very general talking points well then what can I say. So, when you are ready to discuss reality let us all know.

eg8r

eg8r
01-03-2012, 08:47 AM
Welcome back trash.

eg8r

Qtec
01-03-2012, 09:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, now you are dumb enough to start referencing grammar. </div></div>

YOU are the one that made a basic schoolboy error. Don't get huffy.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As far as me being a nutjob for not using only extreme examples to discuss very general talking points well then what can I say. So, when you are ready to discuss reality let us all know.

eg8r </div></div>

LOL. No answer <u>then</u>?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">very general talking points </div></div>

BS. The Evangelical RW extremists have been crystal clear on this. No abortion under any circumstances unless <u>the woman's life is in danger.</u> There are some who don't even agree with this exception.

Now we have the 'life begins with inception' nutjobs!
As Sofla pointed out, there is no justification for this, in fact, the Bible contradicts this idea.



Q... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r
01-03-2012, 09:42 AM
Sorry, you are not ready to put on your big boy pants and talk with the adults?

eg8r

Qtec
01-03-2012, 09:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry, you are not ready to put on your big boy pants and talk with the adults?

eg8r </div></div>

What BS. You don't like my facts and you know you are wrong so you clam up.

Q

Qtec
01-03-2012, 09:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Welcome back trash.

eg8r </div></div>

I can feel the hate.

Q

Soflasnapper
01-03-2012, 10:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You know, when followers of Islam do this, it is said that this shows their medieval character, radicalism and fanaticism. It's among the litany of alleged transgressions of modernity that all add up to why it's ok to kill such people en masse, because they are backward fanatics.

However, when Jews do this, nobody says it proves anything like that.

Why is that? </div></div>

You should be ashamed to have posted that. </div></div>

To be clear, I do not think extreme male chauvinism is any reason to kill people. I favor not killing people as a general rule.

However, if anything, I would expect that bringing up Islam's similar treatment of women is somewhat exculpatory of Orthodox Jewry's treatment, which is not particularly worse than some of Islam's treatment.

But I see your point. Because it is true that Islam's similar treatment of women is one of the ways propagandists argue that they are menaces who ought to be fought. And of course, the same could be said of Judaism practiced in this same way.

I don't say that, as I've explained.

Gayle in MD
01-03-2012, 10:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not all in Israel believe in a Jewish state!

anti-Zionist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDODrMkO7jI&feature=related)

Same people.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">'Judaism Yes, Zionism No': Ultra-Orthodox Jews march against Israel </div></div>

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA5is7IcEqA)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians in the Middle East still shows little sign of a peaceful resolution. But in New York, there's a group of ultra orthodox Jews, who are devoted to the Palestinian struggle. And as Marina Portnaya discovered, they believe an end to the State of Israel is the only solution. </div></div>

Q </div></div>


The definition of Republican Policies: fascism n. a merging of the interests of big corporations and government, adjoined with a systematic curtailment of civil liberties

Gayle in Md.

Qtec
01-03-2012, 11:08 AM
Its quite surprising that there has been no comment on the post with the 2 videos I linked.

Its like they don't want to accept the truth. Israel is far from being united.

Another fact is, its also probably more socialist than most countries in Commie/Socialist Europe!

Q

Gayle in MD
01-03-2012, 11:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its quite surprising that there has been no comment on the post with the 2 videos I linked.

Its like they don't want to accept the truth. Israel is far from being united.

Another fact is, its also probably more socialist than most countries in Commie/Socialist Europe!

Q </div></div>


Even if they had watched them, they wouldn't be able to connect the dots.

Here's a good look back, to remind us how disastrous Repiglican foreign policies are, and what a mess they have made of the Middle East.


Posted it elsewhere, but just so you don't miss it:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>
SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITEE TESTIMONY -- ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI
February 1, 2007

Mr. Chairman:

Your hearings come at a critical juncture in the U.S. war of choice in Iraq, and I commend you and Senator Lugar for scheduling them.

It is time for the White House to come to terms with two central realities:

1. The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America's global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America's moral credentials. Driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.

2. Only a political strategy that is historically relevant rather than reminiscent of colonial tutelage can provide the needed framework for a tolerable resolution of both the war in Iraq and the intensifying regional tensions.

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD's in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the "decisive ideological struggle" of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America's involvement in World War II.

This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine. In contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism; al Qaeda is an isolated fundamentalist Islamist aberration; most Iraqis are engaged in strife because the American occupation of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi state; while Iran--though gaining in regional influence--is itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak. To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Deplorably, the Administration's foreign policy in the Middle East region has lately relied almost entirely on such sloganeering. Vague and inflammatory talk about "a new strategic context" which is based on "clarity" and which prompts "the birth pangs of a new Middle East" is breeding intensifying anti-Americanism and is increasing the danger of a long-term collision between the United States and the Islamic world. Those in charge of U.S. diplomacy have also adopted a posture of moralistic self-ostracism toward Iran strongly reminiscent of John Foster Dulles's attitude of the early 1950's toward Chinese Communist leaders (resulting among other things in the well-known episode of the refused handshake). It took some two decades and a half before another Republican president was finally able to undo that legacy.

One should note here also that practically no country in the world shares the Manichean delusions that the Administration so passionately articulates. The result is growing political isolation of, and pervasive popular antagonism toward the U.S. global posture.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>It is obvious by now that the American national interest calls for a significant change of direction. There is in fact a dominant consensus in favor of a change: American public opinion now holds that the war was a mistake; that it should not be escalated, that a regional political process should be explored; and that an Israeli-Palestinian accommodation is an essential element of the needed policy alteration and should be actively pursued. It is noteworthy that profound reservations regarding the Administration's policy have been voiced by a number of leading Republicans. One need only invoke here the expressed views of the much admired President Gerald Ford, former Secretary of State James Baker, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and several leading Republican senators, John Warner, Chuck Hagel, and Gordon Smith among others.</span>The urgent need today is for a strategy that seeks to create a political framework for a resolution of the problems posed both by the US occupation of Iraq and by the ensuing civil and sectarian conflict. Ending the occupation and shaping a regional security dialogue should be the mutually reinforcing goals of such a strategy, but both goals will take time and require a genuinely serious U.S. commitment.

The quest for a political solution for the growing chaos in Iraq should involve four steps:

1. The United States should reaffirm explicitly and unambiguously its determination to leave Iraq in a reasonably short period of time.

Ambiguity regarding the duration of the occupation in fact encourages unwillingness to compromise and intensifies the on-going civil strife. Moreover, such a public declaration is needed to allay fears in the Middle East of a new and enduring American imperial hegemony. Right or wrong, many view the establishment of such a hegemony as the primary reason for the American intervention in a region only recently free of colonial domination. That perception should be discredited from the highest U.S. level. Perhaps the U.S. Congress could do so by a joint resolution.

2. The United States should announce that it is undertaking talks with the Iraqi leaders to jointly set with them a date by which U.S. military disengagement should be completed, and the resulting setting of such a date should be announced as a joint decision. In the meantime, the U.S. should avoid military escalation.

It is necessary to engage all Iraqi leaders--including those who do not reside within "the Green Zone"--in a serious discussion regarding the proposed and jointly defined date for U.S. military disengagement because the very dialogue itself will help identify the authentic Iraqi leaders with the self-confidence and capacity to stand on their own legs without U.S. military protection. Only Iraqi leaders who can exercise real power beyond "the Green Zone" can eventually reach a genuine Iraqi accommodation. The painful reality is that much of the current Iraqi regime, characterized by the Bush administration as "representative of the Iraqi people," defines itself largely by its physical location: the 4 sq. miles-large U.S. fortress within Baghdad, protected by a wall in places 15 feet thick, manned by heavily armed U.S. military, popularly known as "the Green Zone."

3. The United States should issue jointly with appropriate Iraqi leaders, or perhaps let the Iraqi leaders issue, an invitation to all neighbors of Iraq (and perhaps some other Muslim countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, and Pakistan) to engage in a dialogue regarding how best to enhance stability in Iraq in conjunction with U.S. military disengagement and to participate eventually in a conference regarding regional stability.

The United States and the Iraqi leadership need to engage Iraq's neighbors in serious discussion regarding the region's security problems, but such discussions cannot be undertaken while the U.S. is perceived as an occupier for an indefinite duration. Iran and Syria have no reason to help the United States consolidate a permanent regional hegemony. It is ironic, however, that both Iran and Syria have lately called for a regional dialogue, exploiting thereby the self-defeating character of the largely passive - and mainly sloganeering - U.S. diplomacy.

A serious regional dialogue, promoted directly or indirectly by the U.S., could be buttressed at some point by a wider circle of consultations involving other powers with a stake in the region's stability, such as the EU, China, Japan, India, and Russia. Members of this Committee might consider exploring informally with the states mentioned their potential interest in such a wider dialogue.

4. Concurrently, the United States should activate a credible and energetic effort to finally reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace, making it clear in the process as to what the basic parameters of such a final accommodation ought to involve.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The United States needs to convince the region that the U.S. is committed both to Israel's enduring security and to fairness for the Palestinians who have waited for more than forty years now for their own separate state. </span>Only an external and activist intervention can promote the long-delayed settlement for the record shows that the Israelis and the Palestinians will never do so on their own. Without such a settlement, both nationalist and fundamentalist passions in the region will in the longer run doom any Arab regime which is perceived as supportive of U.S. regional hegemony.

After World War II, the United States prevailed in the defense of democracy in Europe because it successfully pursued a long-term political strategy of uniting its friends and dividing its enemies, of soberly deterring aggression without initiating hostilities, all the while also exploring the possibility of negotiated arrangements. Today, America's global leadership is being tested in the Middle East. A similarly wise strategy of genuinely constructive political engagement is now urgently needed.

It is also time for the Congress to assert itself.


The President of the United States and Secretary of State would restore some of their lost luster by making some combination of James Baker, Lee Hamilton, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Brent Scowcroft co-Middle East Envoys to help take this penultimate quagmire we are in a direction that might start a virtuous cycle of possibilities rather than the disaster that is unfolding.



</span> </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The definition of Republican Policies: fascism n. a merging of the interests of big corporations and government, adjoined with a systematic curtailment of civil liberties

Gayle in Md.


</div></div>

And some here are hoping that Jeb will jump in?

OMG! Haven't we already been Bushwhacked and Neoconned into oblivion!

Our only hope is that Repiglicans will pay thei price for their disastrous ostructionism, since we got rid of Bush, in the next election.

I predict they will lose, and lose big, not only in the Presidential election, seats on the Hill, as well, a good number of Repub seats will be lost.

We will never have a rational policy for Israel, as long as we have The American Enterprise Institute around, racking up all that secret money from wealthy Israeli operatives, here in this country.

And thanks to the radical RW Supreme Court, we will never have the strength of <span style='font-size: 14pt'>We The People</span>, to guide our elections appropriately.

Their C.U. decision must be reversed, or we are doomed to Fascism.


The definition of Republican Policies: fascism n. a merging of the interests of big corporations and government, adjoined with a systematic curtailment of civil liberties

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
01-03-2012, 12:16 PM
I never clammed up. I actually spoke up. You like to make these issues about a woman's right to do what she wants with her body yet you argue against a 20 year olds right to do what he wants with his body, or hers for that matter. Why are you so defensive against only CERTAIN laws but others that deal with the same issue are OK?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
01-03-2012, 06:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I never clammed up. I actually spoke up. You like to make these issues about a woman's right to do what she wants with her body yet you argue against a 20 year olds right to do what he wants with his body, or hers for that matter. Why are you so defensive against only CERTAIN laws but others that deal with the same issue are OK?

eg8r </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...yet you argue against a 20 year olds right to do what he wants with his body, or hers for that matter </div></div>

A twenty years old man, has no rights whatsoever to do a damned thing with any female's body, regardless of his age, or hers, no rights whatsoever!

No one gives damn, what he does with his own body, except, of course, the religious nutjobs, who think they can dictate such matters.

If you had a point, which you don't, obviously, it's irrational on its face, and just another sicko idea of yours!

So, back to the question.

Would you choose to let the mother of your two living children, your own wife, to just die, rather than tell her doctor to abort the fetus she was carrying, if he advised you that she may well die if she carried it to term?

G.