It's true. Pro-life men are 70% less likely to know where the clitoris is.

Than you, YJ? Because 70% of 0 is still 0.

abge+1 again

Dammit, abge must be talking to my ex again.

Look, you tell that slut once and for all that I KNOW where the clitoris is, I just don't GIVE a fuck.

"Also these pro-life men don't have a clue about the biology of pregnancy or women's bodies in general, which informs why their policy suggestions are so damned ignorant."

thats probably a blanket statement thats not true, Putin,you are be assuming that pro-lifers don't have the knowledge, of biology, when their beliefs are probably based on some religious argument. theres a difference

YJ, did she buy you a map or a book?

@ssoren

".... there's a difference."

No there isn't. I don't care if your ignorance on women's bodies stems from the bible or the backwoods of alabama. Ignorance is ignorance, and those who are ignorant have no place making policy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTrX1LRsdUY

so why are you talking

im not pro-life,

I mean the general "you" not you specifically. I should have said "one."

if you are now saying that people who uphold their religious beliefs are ignorant, well that is probably another thread and topic....

I'd like to believe that except they keep making asinine comments about uteruses response to rape. So either they're stupid or evil. I'm naturally inclined to believe the former.

Its a women's body,and her choice, to me thats the end of it

the basis though of the religious argument though should be thrown out,because there is supposed to be an inherent separation between church and state, that most seem to forget when it suits them

There's no separation at all. The churches make billions, are effectively large corporations with tons of businesses like hospitals, spend their money telling people how to vote and blatantly intervene in the political process, and can't even get audited.

The only restriction on their activity is that they can't on paper endorse specific candidates, that's a trivial restriction however. The churches own America and have for quite a while.

America is a Christian Pakistan. Nominally 'secular' but in practice a theocracy.

the church being the largest corporation in the world and people you promote their religious beliefs are two valid points,but they are separate issues

in the political arena

ssorenn: nothing wrong with upholding religious beliefs, until those beliefs contradict facts and the person in question is invested with authority.

this is why there are laws, and if you like or don't like something try to change it

you are looking for utopia...when you find it let me know,I'm in...until then we all must abide by the laws of the land,for good or bad

at least in this country you can have a voice of gratitude or dismay,

That isn't good enough. I'm OK with people trying to push their morality. That does not mean passing legislating based on ignorance is ever acceptable. And I mean that in the general case, not just re: women's bodies.

i agree with you, but in an non perfect world, things are....non perfect, but i challenge you to find a better place to live...and if you don't like it that much, change your venue

Nonsense. I am under no obligation to "go somewhere else" if I don't like the way things are in my own country. As a citizen, I have every right to try and shape our society into something more to my liking. I would only leave America if I became convinced that we are on an irreversible path.

Good for you, YJ. I may not agree with you on every topic, but every citizen (except maybe Putin33 :-D) should fight to change the country into their utopia. That's the whole point of democracy.

this is why there are laws, and if you like or don't like something try to change it

i said that already

Well as a (not) representative for every single pro-lifer out there, I can't answer for the beliefs of every single person. People who have one ideological similarity are not restricted to having the same beliefs as a whole.

@YJ
“@cyrus oh you can comment all you like. But there's a reason that women are relatively far more pro-choice: believe it or not, they actually want to control what goes on in their own bodies! Imagine that!”
Citation please. I happen to know many women who are pro-life.
“The gender of the fetus is irrelevant. What's relevant is our society has a system set up where the women bear a hugely disproportionate amount of the time and financial burden, career sacrifices, personal sacrifices, and risks of bearing/raising a child, so it's somewhat amusing to me that men disproportionately want to keep them from having the freedom to make that decision for themselves.”
So rather than fix social stigmas and empower women, we kill the baby? I am all for women in the work force, and I think stay-at-home dads are fine. I don’t think that killing a baby is the answer for that problem.
“Men are incapable of childbirth - we aren't "peers" of women in this circumstance, so your "jury" parallel is not a good one.”
Women are incapable of being inside a man’s mind when he murders someone, ergo, they are not “peers” of men. At least by your logic.

The gender of the foetus is far from irrelevant in the case of sex-selective abortion. I remember that the last time we went through this debate there were citations to the occurrence of this in the US and UK. Ironically it is female foetus' that are the principal target, with some women writers using the, in my view, apt term of gendercide to describe this.