timujin: EnviroDude: Democrats must get a lot of money from Planned Parenthood to be this stupid. They are debating over 4 weeks?

and the Republicans must therefore be repeatedly bringing up their bills and amendments because someone is paying them to as well?

Well, duh.
Both sides are bad
So vote Republican

EnviroDude:

I just call them the way I see them.

I don't think anyone doubts that.

EnviroDude: Democrats must get a lot of money from Planned Parenthood to be this stupid. They are debating over 4 weeks?

Gotta make it somewhere, you know.


/big money in sucking babies out of the womb

Ah yeah, providing medical procedures and treatment to women below the poverty line is a huge racket. Everyone knows that.

There should also be a ban on Viagra and Cialis. I mean, if Jesus wanted you to get it up, then you would. You're defying the will of Jesus.

What Wood Jesus Do?

EnviroDude: derp de deedle derp...

QUICK, Robin, to the Derpmobile!!!!

Can I also get a ban on fat hairy guys wearing muscle shirts at the OCB?

/Always trying to sneak that one in somewhere.

Santorum will be in favor of this proposal.

Is it a requirement that these quid pro quo amendments always try to pull some apples and oranges comparison?

it's not a "Women can't get their tubes tied bill", ladies.

/that probably comes next

The problem with using this kind of strategy is that it goes way over the heads of their opponents.

Stupid Dems, vasectomies won't stop secret buttsecks.

This is most excellent. If women have no choice but to bear their young to term (despite the physical health of said young and mother), then men should have no choice but to always have viable sperm. Because it is necessary for every sexual act to end in the birth of a child, yes? ;)

I know it is joke legislation and I know that the people who need to hear it the most won't get it, but some of us appreciate it. Forced birth fanatics are insane. They do know how rare abortions after 20 weeks are, right? If an abortion takes place after 20 weeks, there is something really really wrong with the fetus or the mother's life is in danger. In either case, it is the choice of the parent(s) to allow a "wrongly formulated" baby into the world, or the choice of the mother to sacrifice her life for that of the child. I see no reason to involve law makers at any stage of the process. Perhaps law enforcement if the conception was not legal or if the mother is being forced to make a choice about her life that is not her will.

skullkrusher: Is it a requirement that these quid pro quo amendments always try to pull some apples and oranges comparison?

A more apt amendment would be one allowing any person requiring dialysis to grab anyone they want off the street and force them to be a blood filterer for the kidney patient for a period of 9 months.

skullkrusher: Is it a requirement that these quid pro quo amendments always try to pull some apples and oranges comparison?

it's not a "Women can't get their tubes tied bill", ladies.

/that probably comes next

As I pointed out on a different thread on a different site, there's really nothing to compare birth control to. Men don't have a pill or an IUD or any other form of birth control that requires a doctor aside from a vasectomy. It's the closest comparison possible.

I also have absolutely no doubt in my mind that if men were the ones getting pregnant, abortion would be 100% legal in every state in every trimester, and men would have free and easy access to birth control pills.

Theaetetus: skullkrusher: Is it a requirement that these quid pro quo amendments always try to pull some apples and oranges comparison?

A more apt amendment would be one allowing any person requiring dialysis to grab anyone they want off the street and force them to be a blood filterer for the kidney patient for a period of 9 months.

hehe I suppose that would be better. Mandatory marrow donor registration?

Approves.

/not even remotely obscure.

Mike Chewbacca: skullkrusher: Is it a requirement that these quid pro quo amendments always try to pull some apples and oranges comparison?

it's not a "Women can't get their tubes tied bill", ladies.

/that probably comes next

As I pointed out on a different thread on a different site, there's really nothing to compare birth control to. Men don't have a pill or an IUD or any other form of birth control that requires a doctor aside from a vasectomy. It's the closest comparison possible.

I also have absolutely no doubt in my mind that if men were the ones getting pregnant, abortion would be 100% legal in every state in every trimester, and men would have free and easy access to birth control pills.

I think feeding the father castor oil and making him carry a 20-25 lb weight around for 9 months could do it

The counter-argument will of course be, that life begins at conception, sperm doesn't count as life.

The most mind-farking thing about this whole abortion thing, especially the "life begins at the moment of conception" argument would not even exist if the supporters of such legislation always had their way. They wouldn't even know what the fark an egg or sperm is or how a baby is conceived considering how anti-science these people are. Thanks to ultrasounds, microscopes, biology, anatomy, physiology, technology, all these things they deplore, they now have extracted an argument.

Fark religion.

Absolut Height Advantage: The counter-argument will of course be, that life begins at conception, sperm doesn't count as life.

The most mind-farking thing about this whole abortion thing, especially the "life begins at the moment of conception" argument would not even exist if the supporters of such legislation always had their way. They wouldn't even know what the fark an egg or sperm is or how a baby is conceived considering how anti-science these people are. Thanks to ultrasounds, microscopes, biology, anatomy, physiology, technology, all these things they deplore, they now have extracted an argument.

Fark religion.

You make Sir Isaac Newton cry

Mike Chewbacca: I also have absolutely no doubt in my mind that if men were the ones getting pregnant, abortion would be 100% legal in every state in every trimester, and men would have free and easy access to birth control pills.

No... More likely, if men were the ones getting pregnant, a bunch of old white women in the legislature would be proposing these bills.

/we'd also be arguing in favor of the Billy Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

Absolut Height Advantage: The counter-argument will of course be, that life begins at conception.

and my counter counter argument is that life begins at intent, meaning that if a hot christian chick doesn't bend over and grab her ankles for me when I ask, she's committing preemptive Abortion.

skullkrusher: it's not a "Women can't get their tubes tied bill", ladies.

That's because the GOP is okay with women permanently making themselves sterile, but not with them temporarily making themselves sterile. Their objection to birth control isn't really about letting Jebus decide who has a baby and when, but preventing women from having sex and viciously punishing those who do.

The fact that you folks wrap yourselves in a worldview developed by illiterate shepherds crouched in fear around a campfire while making up stories to explain the big scary universe is hugely amusing to the rest of us. The fact that you expect us to take you seriously is even more so.

Barricaded Gunman: skullkrusher: it's not a "Women can't get their tubes tied bill", ladies.

That's because the GOP is okay with women permanently making themselves sterile, but not with them temporarily making themselves sterile. Their objection to birth control isn't really about letting Jebus decide who has a baby and when, but preventing women from having sex and viciously punishing those who do.

Yes, that.

The fact that you folks wrap yourselves in a worldview developed by illiterate shepherds crouched in fear around a campfire while making up stories to explain the big scary universe is hugely amusing to the rest of us. The fact that you expect us to take you seriously is even more so.

But not quite that. You were right the first time - this isn't about religion, but about control over women's sexuality. It's cloaked in religion, but their primary motivation is control.

Barricaded Gunman: skullkrusher: it's not a "Women can't get their tubes tied bill", ladies.

That's because the GOP is okay with women permanently making themselves sterile, but not with them temporarily making themselves sterile. Their objection to birth control isn't really about letting Jebus decide who has a baby and when, but preventing women from having sex and viciously punishing those who do.

The fact that you folks wrap yourselves in a worldview developed by illiterate shepherds crouched in fear around a campfire while making up stories to explain the big scary universe is hugely amusing to the rest of us. The fact that you expect us to take you seriously is even more so.

you got all that from my use of logic, huh?

EnviroDude: I_Am_Weasel: It probably made sense when you typed it, though.

I just call them the way I see them.

So how long have you been legally blind?

Another fine example of liberals responding to something they don't like by making invalid comparisons? Shocking.

Nobody is trying to outlaw women having their tubes tied, which is the equivalent of a vasectomy. Then again, this is nothing more than playing to the absolutely stupid myth liberals are trying to perpetuate about limiting access to birth control, so I can see where the "brilliant" idea of comparing abortion and vasectomies originated from.

randomjsa: Another fine example of liberals responding to something they don't like by making invalid comparisons? Shocking.

Nobody is trying to outlaw women having their tubes tied, which is the equivalent of a vasectomy. Then again, this is nothing more than playing to the absolutely stupid myth liberals are trying to perpetuate about limiting access to birth control, so I can see where the "brilliant" idea of comparing abortion and vasectomies originated from.

Why is having your tubes tied perfectly OK with the same crowd that is generally against all other forms of birth control? Seriously, does anybody know?

randomjsa: Another fine example of liberals responding to something they don't like by making invalid comparisons? Shocking.

Nobody is trying to outlaw women having their tubes tied, which is the equivalent of a vasectomy. Then again, this is nothing more than playing to the absolutely stupid myth liberals are trying to perpetuate about limiting access to birth control, so I can see where the "brilliant" idea of comparing abortion and vasectomies originated from.

So what is the male equivalent of the pill? What comparison CAN we make?

ib_thinkin: Mrbogey: Vasectomies are comparable to tubal ligation.

This is a good point. Ban masturbation!

/God gets quite irate.

Still not the same as a man's ability to produce sperm is not as finite as a woman's egg count.

Your reproductive chooices are your business up until the point you start asking others to pay for them. Then they also become the business of those you asking to pay for those choices.

Women have no biatch coming. The father gets no say so in the process. If the woman does not choose abortion he is stuck with the state coming after him for child support for child he may not have wanted. If the woman chooses abortion a child he may want is destroyed.

/biatches

MRA-like typing detected!

randomjsa: Nobody is trying to outlaw women having their tubes tied, which is the equivalent of a vasectomy. Then again, this is nothing more than playing to the absolutely stupid myth liberals are trying to perpetuate about limiting access to birth control, so I can see where the "brilliant" idea of comparing abortion and vasectomies originated from.

Could you explain what "stupid myth liberals are trying to perpetuate" you're talking about?

Because the GOP most definitely is attempting to limit access to birth control. How can you not understand that?

hasty ambush: Your reproductive chooices are your business up until the point you start asking others to pay for them. Then they also become the business of those you asking to pay for those choices.

What do you think is cheaper? Paying $50/month so a woman can get the pill as part of her insurance, or paying $25,000 so that woman can give birth to that kid she never wanted?

hasty ambush: Still not the same as a man's ability to produce sperm is not as finite as a woman's egg count. Your reproductive chooices are your business up until the point you start asking others to pay for them. Then they also become the business of those you asking to pay for those choices.

Uh huh. And your hair-splitting "sperm vs egg production" argument in no way makes you appear desperate. Until churches stop pretending they're infallible and start paying their fair share of taxes you can keep your creepy superstitions out of everyone else's pants, Einstein.

Barricaded Gunman: Could you explain what "stupid myth liberals are trying to perpetuate" you're talking about?

Maybe this will help:

I believe in pro-choice. But I also believe that pro-choice isnt exclusively for females. If its wrong for the male to force the female to be a parent, then its wrong for the female to force the male to be as well. A man should not be allowed to force a woman to bring a child to term. This is awfully wrong. At the same time, it is wrong for a woman to make a choice and force the man to be responsible for her choice.

Kibbler: There should also be a ban on Viagra and Cialis. I mean, if Jesus wanted you to get it up, then you would. You're defying the will of Jesus.

What Wood Jesus Do?

Not to mention, if God alone reserves dominion over entering and leaving the world, which is the Catholic justification for being against birth control, then we should also end all life-saving and life-extending medical treatments. Because that's usurping God's power over death.

\And before you say it's a bad comparison because life-extending treatments do fail and so God's ultimately still in charge, I'll just point out that birth control fails, too.