WhatAmberLoves | Arkansas news, politics, opinion, restaurants, music, movies and art

Member since Feb 1, 2013

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.


  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »


Recent Comments

Re: “UPDATE: Rapert abortion bill tabled, political tension surfaces

For the first time ever, I commented in response to an article. Since then, I have been personally addressed and questioned because of my comment. So, in response to questions posed to me by the username "SoundPolicy":

1) Did you misread my comment? I didn't claim this is not a "women's rights" issue. I believe it is false for opponents of the bills to do so in the name of "women's rights." Being "for" or "against" makes it neither "less" nor "more" of a "women's rights" issue. However, it is ridiculous for the opponents of the bills to claim some sort of honor of doing it on behalf of ALL women. I call BS to the notion. Many, many, many women oppose abortion. You opposing this bill all you want for your own "right"  is YOUR issue, opposing it does not make it MY issue, thus it is as fair for one side as the other to declare our side in the name of "women's rights."  From my point of view, I see the proposed bills in favor of "women's rights."  :) 

2) Now, I'm being told to explain when/where I was granted the right to control other women's bodies? What? I have no interest in doing any such thing. I simply question a society that thinks inflicting pain on an unborn child in order to terminate is acceptable. No more, no less. 

3) Being agnostic myself, I can't help but think you're being laughably argumentative and beyond the perimeters of the actual topic: inflicting pain on unborn children, a separate issue from "every egg and every sperm in a man's body."  My agnostic attitude probably "defiles" the religious views of the strongest proponents of these very bills, so what? For me, religious issue has little/nothing to do with this issue. The last couple of decades our society has allowed and even championed humans inflicting pain and terminating unborn children in the name of "rights."  Why do that? 

SoundPolicy asked:
"Do you support babies after they are born, not just before, by lobbying your elected officials to ensure every baby has adequate food, shelter and clothing? Are you willing to pay higher taxes to make sure all those babies can be adequately fed, clothed and housed?"

My reply:
Why would I lobby elected officials for food, shelter, and clothing instead of just providing food, shelter and clothing for my children? Why would I pay higher taxes? Are you imagining a bunch of hypothetical babies that don't have families? People don't have to get pregnant. It's not complicated.

1 like, 13 dislikes
Posted by WhatAmberLoves on 02/05/2013 at 8:17 PM

Re: “UPDATE: Rapert abortion bill tabled, political tension surfaces

Disagrees that this bill is a "guaranteed loser in court," as Max Brantley says. Slavery, once "legal", was abolished. Segregation, once "legal", was abolished. Humans inflicting pain and killing their own unborn children, currently legal, will hopefully soon be abolished as well. 

To the author and commenters opposing the bills: While Mr. Brantley and supporters are busy facilitating ending the life of conceived yet unborn children, the rest of us are multiplying successfully, raising the next wave of future voters and doing our best to simultaneously minimize our children's exposure to their message that humans killing offspring is acceptable. Mr. Brantley and some of the commenters on this article seem to want the rest of us in a modern, evolved society to think that it is acceptable behavior for humans to destroy their unborn children. 

If people don't want kids, then why get pregnant? There. That wasn't so complicated was it? Don't want kids? Then, don't get pregnant. You DO have a choice. I'm glad to see that societally, the pendulum is swinging on abortion issues to a healthier, more responsible state of mind to see abortions for what they are.

Furthermore, as a woman and mother of 3 daughters, some people in opposition to the bill, both locally and in the media, ought to consider not trying to make their point by making this a "women's rights" issue. As a woman, my only "right" being violated is by the opposition to the bill in their declaration that they speak on my behalf.

1 like, 19 dislikes
Posted by WhatAmberLoves on 02/05/2013 at 5:06 PM


© 2018 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation