Strix occidentalis: namatad: Republicat: namatad: Republicat: The world that Rick Santorum and the GOP want to live in: "These men, we've been told, are like war criminals. It's no excuse that what they did was legal at the time: their crimes are retroactive. They have committed atrocities and must be made into examples, for the rest. Though this is hardly needed. No woman in her right mind, these days, would seek to prevent a birth, should she be so lucky as to conceive."

LOL
I thought that that quote was familiar. LOL

Yeah, I'm reading that book right now. It's scary to think that this book (along with Julian Comstock) is the type of country that the Religious Right seems to want.

you just made my puke in my mouth. a LOT.
1984 wasnt scary enough. they had to toss the handmaid's tale into it? shudder

Am I a bad person for absolutely refusing to read The Handmaid's Tale? I know, classic literature and relevance to current politics, but I just find the concept way too scary.

watch the mini-series ... :D

If you are against abortion you better be adopting as many babies as you can and voting for as much welfare and free services as possible for children and single mothers.

Otherwise you should be slapped across the face because you are just a farking moron whore repeating some fake morals that have NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

JesusJuice: Leaving men without mates is not healthy for society [Link (new window)]

And if there's one thing Saudi society is known for, it's the sexual freedom it allows its women.

JRoo: If you are against abortion you better be adopting as many babies as you can and voting for as much welfare and free services as possible for children and single mothers.

Otherwise you should be slapped across the face because you are just a farking moron whore repeating some fake morals that have NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

hahahahahahahaha
no no no
that is PUNISHMENT for the women who had sex.

it is sad and tragic to watch these people in action.

cryinoutloud: the_vegetarian_cannibal: Can you spot JesusJuice in this picture?

That picture is hilarious, but you know that boy probably has a date, and it might even be one of the hotties, since he's looking at them. He probably just didn't show up at some fancy affair with flowers, hoping to find someone.

JesusJuice: Anyone care to respond to my points or just more ad hominem?
For the record, I get mine. I don' expect you to believe me or care if you do.

I did answer you. What you advocate is more control of women, and total control of their sex lives. I guess you like to 'get yours' from women like these

[i.huffpost.com image 260x190]

Oh wait, that's a personal attack. you advocate more control of women, and total control of their sex lives. And you expect anyone to take you seriously?

bwhahahahahahaa
help help I AM BEING REPRESSED!!!!

AbbeySomeone: This is insane. What right do these men have to tell women what they can or cannot do with their bodies? NONE.

Umm, excuse me, but you women are owned by your father/brothers/uncles until he sells/gives you away in marriage, whereupon you belong to your husband.

So yes, he has every right to tell you what to do with your body.

*whistles as he walks off down the sidewalk*

JesusJuice: Sex for women has zero consequences right now, which is why so many women are so sexually irresponsible. If there's a real possibility that the bad boy who makes their giny tingle might knock them up and they'll have no recourse but to have his spawn, women just might start thinking a bit more about who they spread their legs for.

What women need right now is less sexual freedom, not more.

So, now we know who wrote this letter at BYU, eh?

MyRandomName:
He made a choice to give x% of his salary? Who knew! Why is his choice dependent on hers, just have the man start paying a few hundred a month anyway.

He didn't know that pregnancy, thus child support, was a possibility before he decided to have sex with someone?

Putting ones penis into someone else, sometimes comes with consequences.
Just as accepting someone's penis into one's body does.

Ugh. Next these fundy men will want to make pre-marital sex a crime. You know what? They can go fark themselves. Or each other. Just don't allow them access to a woman. They don't deserve it.

///so disgusted to see how this country is running in reverse. I don't recall this much hysteria when Roe v Wade passed!

///yeah, get off my lawn, etc. I'd say stay out of my uterus, if I still had one.

RedVentrue: Dr Dreidel: That's why I said "manslaughter", not "murder". You wanna make it "involuntary manslaughter"? I'm OK with that.

Shall we start testing every newborn for traces of another entity?

Also, you're basically admitting that a fetus is a consciousless meatsack, not unlike plenty of vegetables the state has no problem turning life support off for. Not a very strong support for your point.

// lost 3 grandparents that way
// I support the right to die with dignity (thankfully, Gramps had that same foresight), and the right to choose in medical matters of conscience

The fetus will develop consciousness in time whereas the meatsack will not. Once you start life support you must be willing to see things through to the full conclusion. Make a decision at the start of your action and live with it. All else is only dodging the responsibility and consequences of your actions. I believe the right to die with dignity belongs with the principle person involved. Everyone should have an advanced directive when reaching majority age.

1. Plenty of moralists were telling me (or had previously) that you can't shut off life support because what if my grandfather (a massive stroke and lung problems before a mild heart attack) started tap-dancing, or what if my grandmother (brain stem stroke) penned a bestselling novel.

2. You assume all babies are conceived by happily-married people with the resources to see the pregnancy through (forget the coming years of child-care). Your paragraph, while noble in motivation, fails to account for rape and incest babies (unless those must also be seen to conclusion as "living with the consequence of an action"). Forcing these pregnancies to term, while logically consistent with your position, is morally abhorrent - to me and to most Americans.

3. We have medications and treatments to "dodge responsibility" in any number of ways already. Condoms, for one. Regular sunbather with melanoma? We'll scrape that off. Break your leg in a who-could-have-seen-it-coming freak skateboard/pickup truck/jetski accident? Not only will we set it, but those pins won't need to come out, and the PTs already been scheduled. Pregnancy might mean more to you, but that's not universal. Until viability (somewhere in the 18?-week range), I'd say that there's some wiggle room. The courts agree.

4. You never answered my question - do we charge newborns who swallowed up their fetal twins with involuntary manslaughter?

Look, I can sympathize that your religious beliefs or philosophies or whatever aren't universally held; neither are mine. Worry about your own shiat - teach your kids that abortion creates demons and condoms cause rickets, for all I care - because you don't want me inflicting my religious/philosophical views on you any more than I want yours on me.

MyRandomName:

Only one chose to keep the child. The man did not. If a woman wants to forgo the costs she can take a morning after pill. A man has no option.

*sigh*

Maybe knowing someone before you have sex with them, isn't such a bad idea.

Perhaps, just perhaps, sex with strangers might put one on the hook. For child support, aids treatments or other STI drugs...for life.

Earpj: MyRandomName:

Only one chose to keep the child. The man did not. If a woman wants to forgo the costs she can take a morning after pill. A man has no option.

*sigh*

Maybe knowing someone before you have sex with them, isn't such a bad idea.

Perhaps, just perhaps, sex with strangers might put one on the hook. For child support, aids treatments or other STI drugs...for life.

*sigh*

Wouldn't it be nice if we spent less time arguing about whether women should or should not be able to have abortions and focused all our energies on making sure they weren't needed in the first place? You know, by ensuring that there was sufficient care for ALL kids already born, support for ALL women with or without partners, sex ed for ALL teenagers...before long, the only abortions really would be those that were medically necessary.

We're such dreamers.

MyRandomName: It's amazing how you got that from my response. farking hilarious. Talk about strawmen.

You might want to look up the definition of "Devil's advocate" if you don't want to be misinterpreted. You aren't playing Devil's advocate if your argument is in no way related to the comment you are responding to.

Gyrfalcon:
Wouldn't it be nice if we spent less time arguing about whether women should or should not be able to have abortions and focused all our energies on making sure they weren't needed in the first place? You know, by ensuring that there was sufficient care for ALL kids already born, support for ALL women with or without partners, sex ed for ALL teenagers...before long, the only abortions really would be those that were medically necessary.

We're such dreamers.

That would be awesome.
Too bad it won't happen. Cause that would be saying that's ok for people to have sex. I can't see the govt doing that.