Does The GOP Lie? You Betcha!

Does The GOP LIE? YOU BETCHA!

The GOP LIES!
If you have ever wondered if in fact the GOP LIES, well this can put your wondering at rest at last. John Kyl, blatantly told an out and out lie on FOX the other day and did not even skip a beat while doing so… “well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does (Abortions)”. When was called on this outrageous and very destructive lie (abortion is actually well under 5% of what Planned Parenthood does), Kyl’s office released a BUGABOO claiming that: “his remark was not intended to be a factual statement”

SAY WHAT?

Now we have a new REALITY coming from the GRAND OLD PARTY, "Hey, don’t take anything we say as factual statements… All our rhetoric is NOT INTENDED TO BE FACTUAL…"

Yeah, like we didn’t know that already? They have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that they only wish to incite and enrage people to HATE ONE ANOTHER so that the LOW INFORMATIONAL VOTER (who usually votes republican) WILL CAST THEIR VOTE FOR THIS LYING PARTY.

Tis a pity and will eventually bring our nation to its knees or WORSE! thethinkingblue

While John Kyl keeps lying on the percentages of abortions Planned Parenthood has performed, one question goes unanswered... Who will defend a woman's choice to have one? Perhaps the excerpt below will help those who still question this right.

Why Abortion is Moral - Abortion questions answered

[[EXCERPT]] Anti-abortionists claim fetal dependence cannot be used as an issue in the abortion debate. They make the point that even after birth, and for years to come, a child is still dependent on its mother, its father, and those around it. And since no one would claim its okay to kill a child because of its dependency on others, we can't, if we follow their logic, claim it's okay to abort a fetus because of its dependence.

What the anti-abortionist fails to do, however, is differentiate between physical dependence and social dependence. Physical dependence does not refer to meeting the physical needs of the child - such as in the anti-abortionist's argument above. That's social dependence; that's where the child depends on society - on other people - to feed it, clothe it, and love it. Physical dependence occurs when one life form depends solely on the physical body of another life form for its existence.

Physical dependence was cleverly illustrated back in 1971 by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson. She created a scenario in which a woman is kidnapped and wakes up to find she's been surgically attached to a world-famous violinist who, for nine months, needs her body to survive. After those nine months, the violinist can survive just fine on his own, but he must have this particular woman in order to survive until then.

Thompson then asks if the woman is morally obliged to stay connected to the violinist who is living off her body. It might be a very good thing if she did - the world could have the beauty that would come from such a violinist - but is she morally obliged to let another being use her body to survive?

This very situation is already conceded by anti-abortionists. They claim RU-486 should be illegal for a mother to take because it causes her uterus to flush its nutrient-rich lining, thus removing a zygote from its necessary support system and, therefore, ending its short existence as a life form. Thus the anti-abortionist's own rhetoric only proves the point of absolute physical dependence.

This question becomes even more profound when we consider a scenario where it's not an existing person who is living off the woman's body, but simply a potential person, or better yet, a single-cell zygote with human DNA that is no different than the DNA in a simple hair follicle.

To complicate it even further, we need to realize that physical dependence also means a physical threat to the life of the mother. The World Health Organization reports that nearly 670,000 women die from pregnancy-related complications each year (this number does not include abortions). That's 1,800 women per day. We also read that in developed countries, such as the United States and Canada, a woman is 13 times more likely to die bringing a pregnancy to term than by having an abortion.

Therefore, not only is pregnancy the prospect of having a potential person physically dependent on the body of one particular women, it also includes the women putting herself into a life-threatening situation for that potential person.

Unlike social dependence, where the mother can choose to put her child up for adoption or make it a ward of the state or hire someone else to take care of it, during pregnancy the fetus is absolutely physically dependent on the body of one woman. Unlike social dependence, where a woman's physical life is not threatened by the existence of another person, during pregnancy, a woman places herself in the path of bodily harm for the benefit of a DNA life form that is only a potential person - even exposing herself to the threat of death.

More Here: Why Abortion is Moral - Abortion questions answered

Those who wish to force their beliefs on others should not be allowed to make laws regarding those beliefs. Most who oppose the rights women have over their own bodies belong to some religious based belief system and would like to do away with the separation of church and state altogether. If they were to ever get their own way on this, all will lose freedom not just those who can think outside the religious box. I once saw a bumper sticker that hits it right smack on the head... DON'T LIKE ABORTION THEN DON'T HAVE ONE! thinkingblue