Questions that Wingnut Presidential Candidates need to Answer

C

Cypress

Well-known member
We know that the wingnut platform is forced-child birth. No abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.

This is kooky enough. But, what are the GOP candidate's stance on birth control? We know they hate the morning after pill. But, beyond that - deep in the republican agenda - is something that I think is there, but never publically spoken about. The religious right is fundamentally against birth control. For many reason, but one being that it empowers women, and also that (in their view) it promotes promiscuity.

If they (GOP candidates) want to risk alienating 80% of women, I suggest getting them to give complete and honest answers to the following questions.



Dear GOP candidate:

1. Do you support the right to use contraception?
2. Would you support legislations that requires pharmacies to both stock and fill prescriptions for birth control pills including Plan B emergency contraception?
3. As President (Senator/Congresswoman) would you support continued funding of Title X, which provides contraception and related reproductive health care services to low-income women?
4. Would you support legislation that require hospitals to offer information and prescriptions of emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault?
5. Would you support legislation requiring schools to include information about contraception as part of any sex ed curriculum?
6. Would you support legislation requiring health insurance providers to cover oral contraceptives in their prescription plans?



inspired by digby at hullaballoo.com
 
I happen to be pro-choice myself but I'm curious how you figure to be pro-life is a "wingnut" position?


Cypress said:
We know that the wingnut platform is forced-child birth. No abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.

This is kooky enough. But, what are the GOP candidate's stance on birth control? We know they hate the morning after pill. But, beyond that - deep in the republican agenda - is something that I think is there, but never publically spoken about. The religious right is fundamentally against birth control. For many reason, but one being that it empowers women, and also that (in their view) it promotes promiscuity.

If they (GOP candidates) want to risk alienating 80% of women, I suggest getting them to give complete and honest answers to the following questions.



Dear GOP candidate:

1. Do you support the right to use contraception?
2. Would you support legislations that requires pharmacies to both stock and fill prescriptions for birth control pills including Plan B emergency contraception?
3. As President (Senator/Congresswoman) would you support continued funding of Title X, which provides contraception and related reproductive health care services to low-income women?
4. Would you support legislation that require hospitals to offer information and prescriptions of emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault?
5. Would you support legislation requiring schools to include information about contraception as part of any sex ed curriculum?
6. Would you support legislation requiring health insurance providers to cover oral contraceptives in their prescription plans?



inspired by digby at hullaballoo.com
Click to expand...
 
cawacko said:
I happen to be pro-choice myself but I'm curious how you figure to be pro-life is a "wingnut" position?
Click to expand...

That is quite simple... if your opinion on a topic is in disagreement with his... you are a wingnut. Never mind the fact that he is a wingnut from the other party. He seems to forget that there are wingnuts on both sides of the aisle.
 
We know that the wingnut platform is to pretend that it is not a human life they are ending and thus support abortions for anyone at anytime. We'll just call it "choice" so more people can justify it.
 
Since I am a frontrunner, I'll answer the questions...

1. Do you support the right to use contraception? Yes.

2. Would you support legislations that requires pharmacies to both stock and fill prescriptions for birth control pills including Plan B emergency contraception? This is a state level, or personal level, issue as it is not a power granted in the constitution to the Federal government and Amendment 10 restricts the power of the Federal government to those specifically granted to the Federal government. I would support such legislation at the state level, but as a branch of the Federal Government I prefer to keep the government within the restrictions of the constitution I swear to uphold.

3. As President (Senator/Congresswoman) would you support continued funding of Title X, which provides contraception and related reproductive health care services to low-income women?
I would provide the funds directly to the States, as again, women's reproduction is either a State or personal level issue. Oversight would be needed to ensure equal availability, but the funding/regulation must be held at that level.

4. Would you support legislation that require hospitals to offer information and prescriptions of emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault?
Again a State/Personal level action of government. I would support such action at a state level.


5. Would you support legislation requiring schools to include information about contraception as part of any sex ed curriculum?
Well outside the powers of the Federal Government again. While I would support it at a state level it is not one of the powers granted to the Federal Government to control education.


6. Would you support legislation requiring health insurance providers to cover oral contraceptives in their prescription plans?

When it was within the interstate commerce clause, yes.
 
Its NOT a prolife stance.

Its an anti choice stand.

This needs to be hammered home.

They call pro choice anti life so why shouldnt we call their stance what it is, anti choice.

I am pro choice because its the American stance on people having the right to deside what happens inside their body without the government stepping in.

There is a nice upside of not killing woman and child with botched abortions.

YOU see the Pro life and pro choice label belongs on my side not an the Anti choice side.

The anti choice side wants to control half of the populations bodies and risk their deaths.
 
cawacko said:
I happen to be pro-choice myself but I'm curious how you figure to be pro-life is a "wingnut" position?
Click to expand...


Overturning Roe v. Wade, banning abortions, and fighting tooth and nail to keep the morning after pill illegal, is the hallmark of your party Cawacko. I consider those to be loony positions. If you're comfortable with them, that's fine.
 
"YOU see the Pro life and pro choice label belongs on my side not an the Anti choice side."

Thank you for providing an example of the left wingnut position. Ignoring the fact that you are ENDING a human life and pretending that somehow makes you pro-life?
 
Desh said:
Its NOT a prolife stance.

Its an anti choice stand.

This needs to be hammered home.

They call pro choice anti life so why shouldnt we call their stance what it is, anti choice.

I am pro choice because its the American stance on people having the right to deside what happens inside their body without the government stepping in.

There is a nice upside of not killing woman and child with botched abortions.

YOU see the Pro life and pro choice label belongs on my side not an the Anti choice side.

The anti choice side wants to control half of the populations bodies and risk their deaths.
Click to expand...

Desh,

I buy your pro-choice anti-choice argument because I feel it extends to issues other than just abortion. School issues such as vouchers for poor students in failing schools falls into the pro-choic, anti-choice categories. Allowing individuals the option to have personal accounts with a portion of their S.S. money falls into in the pro-choice anti-choice group.

It can be debated whether one must have a consistent position on all these issues however I would argue your pro-choice anti-choice can be used for these two categories as well as others.
 
Superfreak said:
"YOU see the Pro life and pro choice label belongs on my side not an the Anti choice side."

Thank you for providing an example of the left wingnut position. Ignoring the fact that you are ENDING a human life and pretending that somehow makes you pro-life?
Click to expand...


The day I see you rushing into a fertility clinic to save bastocysts that are about to be disposed in an incinerator, is the day that I think you actaully really belive in your heart that an embryo or blastocyst is a "human life".

I guarantee you, that if I knew about or saw actual human children being fed into an incinerator, I would do anything I could to physically stop it.

;)
 
The only...

Pro choice that I would support as a conservative is in the case of Rape, Incest or sever medical reasons...this would be between the Mother and the Creator...as for 'carte blanche' abortions which make up most of the abortion cases(Opp's I goofed-don't want to look prego on vacation-hurts my income etc)...no way...! If you play you must pay! I also support contraception before the fact...albeit this is not 100% effective...so if a pregnancy occurs face life and take care of the "Love Child"
 
Last edited:
Battleborne said:
Pro choice that I would support as a conservative is in the case of Rape, Incest or sever medical reasons...this would be between the Mother and the Creator...as for 'carte blanche' abortions which make up most of the abortion cases(Opp's I goofed-don't want to look prego on vacation-hurts my income etc)...no way...! If you play you must pay! I also support contraception before the fact...albeit this is not 100% effective...so if a pregnancy occurs face life and take care of the "Love Child"
Click to expand...

Who has to pay for playing?

You see, despite Cawacko's eloquent reasoning of why he's pro-choice, the real reason he's pro-choice is because he likes to have sex, and he's well aware that today, it's not just the woman who pays like in the good old days.

We don't stone or shun her anymore. And if the DNA comes back yes, Cawacko is going to pay through his nose for the rest of his life.
 
Darla said:
Who has to pay for playing?

You see, despite Cawacko's eloquent reasoning of why he's pro-choice, the real reason he's pro-choice is because he likes to have sex, and he's well aware that today, it's not just the woman who pays like in the good old days.

We don't stone or shun her anymore. And if the DNA comes back yes, Cawacko is going to pay through his nose for the rest of his life.
Click to expand...

Harsh....but true!
 
Darla said:
Who has to pay for playing?You see, despite Cawacko's eloquent reasoning of why he's pro-choice, the real reason he's pro-choice is because he likes to have sex, and he's well aware that today, it's not just the woman who pays like in the good old days.

We don't stone or shun her anymore. And if the DNA comes back yes, Cawacko is going to pay through his nose for the rest of his life.
Click to expand...



Both parties involved...50/50
 
Cypress said:
The day I see you rushing into a fertility clinic to save bastocysts that are about to be disposed in an incinerator, is the day that I think you actaully really belive in your heart that an embryo or blastocyst is a "human life".

I guarantee you, that if I knew about or saw actual human children being fed into an incinerator, I would do anything I could to physically stop it.

;)
Click to expand...

1) If the embryo is not implanted within a womans womb, then it cannot be growing or developing... in short, it cannot be alive... now can it? The "potential" to become alive does not count.

2) Science leaves no question that genetically speaking it is a human child. There is no other possibility. The combination of a human sperm cell and a human egg cell cannot be anything other than human. Because it creates a unique genetic code then it is a unique human life.

3) That does not mean you cannot argue whether or not an unborn child is entitled to basic human rights. THAT is a valid argument. Arguing that it is not human or not alive is simply idiotic.
 
Cypress said:
We know that the wingnut platform is forced-child birth. No abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.

This is kooky enough. But, what are the GOP candidate's stance on birth control? We know they hate the morning after pill. But, beyond that - deep in the republican agenda - is something that I think is there, but never publically spoken about. The religious right is fundamentally against birth control. For many reason, but one being that it empowers women, and also that (in their view) it promotes promiscuity.

If they (GOP candidates) want to risk alienating 80% of women, I suggest getting them to give complete and honest answers to the following questions.



Dear GOP candidate:

1. Do you support the right to use contraception?
2. Would you support legislations that requires pharmacies to both stock and fill prescriptions for birth control pills including Plan B emergency contraception?
3. As President (Senator/Congresswoman) would you support continued funding of Title X, which provides contraception and related reproductive health care services to low-income women?
4. Would you support legislation that require hospitals to offer information and prescriptions of emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault?
5. Would you support legislation requiring schools to include information about contraception as part of any sex ed curriculum?
6. Would you support legislation requiring health insurance providers to cover oral contraceptives in their prescription plans?



inspired by digby at hullaballoo.com
Click to expand...

I see no reason not to ask them, but with all things going on today, I doubt very much this it the top issue of "80%" of woman voters.
 
Superfreak said:
1) If the embryo is not implanted within a womans womb, then it cannot be growing or developing... in short, it cannot be alive... now can it? The "potential" to become alive does not count.

2) Science leaves no question that genetically speaking it is a human child. There is no other possibility. The combination of a human sperm cell and a human egg cell cannot be anything other than human. Because it creates a unique genetic code then it is a unique human life.

3) That does not mean you cannot argue whether or not an unborn child is entitled to basic human rights. THAT is a valid argument. Arguing that it is not human or not alive is simply idiotic.
Click to expand...

You have one complete life and a potential one.

The complete lifes ability to control their own body outwieghts YOUR desire to control the complete lifes body.

So Fuck off and grow up.
 
Desh said:
You have one complete life and a potential one.

The complete lifes ability to control their own body outwieghts YOUR desire to control the complete lifes body.

So Fuck off and grow up.
Click to expand...
The embryo, while inside, growing. Is one complete life. It isn't "potential life" while it is alive. That is plain ridiculous.

Once again, one can argue whether the embryo is yet a "person", but not that it isn't alive or that it isn't human. One can argue as to when rights apply to this particular life, but not that it is only a potential life, as it is clearly alive it is already life, not "potential", it is a reality.
 
Superfreak said:
"YOU see the Pro life and pro choice label belongs on my side not an the Anti choice side."

Thank you for providing an example of the left wingnut position. Ignoring the fact that you are ENDING a human life and pretending that somehow makes you pro-life?
Click to expand...

allowing abortions is no more "ending" human life than ejackulating in your hand, or having a normal menstrational period.

they also are potential human lives
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top