If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Riverfront Times)   MO Rep. Stacey Newman (D-ispleased) has the balls to turn the contraception debate around   (blogs.riverfronttimes.com) divider line 309
    More: Spiffy, contraceptives, Department of Health  
•       •       •

8475 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Mar 2012 at 5:24 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



309 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-02 08:55:32 PM
The balls in our (males) court now.
 
2012-03-02 08:56:25 PM

DrewCurtisJr: No it's not. She wants the baby, she raises and pays for the baby. Freedom of choice.


And what if she doesn't have the money to properly raise the child?

You have no concern over a man being obligated with a significant financial burden, under threat of imprisonment, for 18 years. That is misandry.


I must have mentioned at least two or three times now that both men and women can be made to pay child support. So by your logic, the system must be both misandrist and misogynist - misanthropist would be the technically correct term, I believe.
 
2012-03-02 08:58:40 PM

Pincy: That's a fact of life that you are just going to have to accept no matter how unfair it seems.


And what about that should prevent a man from expressing his desire not to be part of the child's life during early pregnancy, pay for the cost of an abortion, and then give up his rights and responsibilities. The woman still has all her choices and so does the man.

The "Well that's the way biology is, it's unfair", works both ways. You have to carry the child to term, unfair, the end.
 
2012-03-02 09:00:11 PM

DrewCurtisJr: But that is the choice she freely made. She could abort, give the baby up for adoption, but she didn't, she chose to keep it.


She's not the one whining... you are.
 
2012-03-02 09:00:37 PM

Biological Ali: I must have mentioned at least two or three times now that both men and women can be made to pay child support.


Come up with a situation where a woman can be forced to pay for a child she does not want but the man does.
 
2012-03-02 09:00:55 PM

DrewCurtisJr: Pincy: That's a fact of life that you are just going to have to accept no matter how unfair it seems.

And what about that should prevent a man from expressing his desire not to be part of the child's life during early pregnancy, pay for the cost of an abortion, and then give up his rights and responsibilities. The woman still has all her choices and so does the man.


If they can work it out so this happens then fine. Some women would probably be happy to have this.

The "Well that's the way biology is, it's unfair", works both ways. You have to carry the child to term, unfair, the end.

Except that we have this legal thing called abortion that women can use to terminate the pregnancy.
 
2012-03-02 09:03:52 PM

The Why Not Guy: She's not the one whining... you are.


Because she made the choice she wanted. Why not let the man?
 
2012-03-02 09:05:58 PM

DrewCurtisJr: Biological Ali: I must have mentioned at least two or three times now that both men and women can be made to pay child support.

Come up with a situation where a woman can be forced to pay for a child she does not want but the man does.


If the woman doesn't want anything to do with the child, and the man decides to raise it on his own, then she may well be liable for child support, depending on how much she makes and how much the man makes etc. What exactly are you finding so difficult to understand?
 
2012-03-02 09:06:09 PM

Pincy: Except that we have this legal thing called abortion that women can use to terminate the pregnancy.


And? We didn't always have this "legal thing" called abortion, why not have a "legal thing" for men as well? I thought it was about being pro-choice?
 
2012-03-02 09:07:10 PM

DrewCurtisJr: Pincy: Except that we have this legal thing called abortion that women can use to terminate the pregnancy.

And? We didn't always have this "legal thing" called abortion, why not have a "legal thing" for men as well? I thought it was about being pro-choice?


Are you proposing that men should have the choice to push the woman they impregnated down the stairs or to sock them in the breadbox real good?
 
2012-03-02 09:07:19 PM

DrewCurtisJr: The Why Not Guy: She's not the one whining... you are.

Because she made the choice she wanted. Why not let the man?


Jesus Christ, just quit whining and pay your child support and raise your kids, you fncking pussy.
 
2012-03-02 09:07:27 PM

Biological Ali: If the woman doesn't want anything to do with the child, and the man decides to raise it on his own, then she may well be liable for child support, depending on how much she makes and how much the man makes etc. What exactly are you finding so difficult to understand?


So a man can force a women to have a child she doesn't want?

Where do you live?
 
2012-03-02 09:07:28 PM

DrewCurtisJr: Because she made the choice she wanted. Why not let the man?


If she was able to get contraceptives through her insurance they could both fark to their heart's delight without having to worry about getting pregnant. Then he wouldn't have to worry about paying child support!

Glad to see you've come around.
 
2012-03-02 09:10:32 PM

DrewCurtisJr: Biological Ali: If the woman doesn't want anything to do with the child, and the man decides to raise it on his own, then she may well be liable for child support, depending on how much she makes and how much the man makes etc. What exactly are you finding so difficult to understand?

So a man can force a women to have a child she doesn't want?

Where do you live?


What does that have to do with anything? You asked if women can be made to pay child support for children they don't want (they obviously can). What does that have to do with the man forcing her to have a child? You're starting to babble here - I think you may want to take a few minutes to collect your thoughts.
 
2012-03-02 09:15:10 PM

Biological Ali: You asked if women can be made to pay child support for children they don't want (they obviously can).


How? Give me a scenario.
 
2012-03-02 09:20:10 PM

The Why Not Guy: If she was able to get contraceptives through her insurance they could both fark to their heart's delight without having to worry about getting pregnant. Then he wouldn't have to worry about paying child support!

Glad to see you've come around.



Right, no woman has ever lied about being on birth control. Why not pay for the man's birth control as well?
 
2012-03-02 09:21:19 PM

Methadone Girls: You forgot the part where you have to make stupid small talk with the person while they've got the probe in there.


I lol'd. I had to get probed manually when something went haywire on my GI tract. Look, I'm a liberal guy, and even if I weren't I'd understand the clinical seriousness of having my ass deflowered in such a way.

But please, please don't try to talk to me about the New Orleans Saints while I'm at your mercy. It's still my asshole, and free agency talk doesn't make it any more comfortable. Next time just play some Bach or
something. At least you doped me for the actual scope procedure, but I had to listen to your rather, erm, lengthy take on football while your finger was in my ass

/nttawwt
 
2012-03-02 09:21:39 PM

DrewCurtisJr: Biological Ali: You asked if women can be made to pay child support for children they don't want (they obviously can).

How? Give me a scenario.


Do you not know how child support works? In situations where one parent is raising the child and the the other is permanently away, living a separate life (they could be divorced, separated, or never married), funds can be extracted from that parent in order to ensure that the child is properly taken care of. The laws themselves don't much care about which is the mother and which is the father. The 'away' parent may well be the child's mother. And the mother may even decide that she no longer wants the kid, but she'd still have to pay if a court decides that she's liable for child support.
 
2012-03-02 09:25:24 PM

DrewCurtisJr: Why not pay for the man's birth control as well?


I'd be perfectly fine with that... it makes more sense than insurance covering Viagra.
 
2012-03-02 09:34:42 PM

Biological Ali: Do you not know how child support works? In situations where one parent is raising the child and the the other is permanently away, living a separate life (they could be divorced, separated, or never married), funds can be extracted from that parent in order to ensure that the child is properly taken care of. The laws themselves don't much care about which is the mother and which is the father. The 'away' parent may well be the child's mother. And the mother may even decide that she no longer wants the kid, but she'd still have to pay if a court decides that she's liable for child support.


That is not a good example. At some point that woman decided she did want a child or be involved with the child, either through birth, adoption, or marriage.

Give me an example where a woman, simply by consenting to having sex, would be forced into paying child support for almost 20 years.

The Why Not Guy: I'd be perfectly fine with that... it makes more sense than insurance covering Viagra.


Why, the two cover different conditions.
 
2012-03-02 09:36:37 PM

The Why Not Guy: DrewCurtisJr: Why not pay for the man's birth control as well?

I'd be perfectly fine with that... it makes more sense than insurance covering Viagra.


When male birth control is comparable to female birth control, your argument has merit. Otherwise, you're comparing apples to zodiacs.
 
2012-03-02 09:36:55 PM

bigsteve3OOO: All of you saying right on!!!!!! then must also agree that, seeing how sperm is the same as the lady stuff, men have exactly 1/2 the right and responsibility in the decision to abort. Right? or is it different then? what if he wants to abort and she wants to keep or opposite? just asking the questions.


When it has to grow inside his body for 9 months at risk to his health and life he can have the final say. But until medical science finds a way to remove it from her uterus and shove it up his ass he only get to have input to her to the extent she is willing to allow.
 
2012-03-02 09:37:17 PM

DrewCurtisJr: Why, the two cover different conditions.


That's why I think one makes more sense. If they both covered the same condition, I wouldn't care which insurance covered.

You're not very good at this.
 
2012-03-02 09:39:11 PM

The Why Not Guy: DrewCurtisJr: Why, the two cover different conditions.

That's why I think one makes more sense. If they both covered the same condition, I wouldn't care which insurance covered.

You're not very good at this.


Course he's not. Its a friday night and he's in a web forum screaming that its unfair that men have to pay child support and can't just walk away from impregnating random women. How much sex do you actually think he's ever had?
 
2012-03-02 09:39:43 PM

Generic Republican: When male birth control is comparable to female birth control, your argument has merit. Otherwise, you're comparing apples to zodiacs.


Why? What would be the problem with insurance covering both male and female contraceptives?
 
2012-03-02 09:43:18 PM

The Why Not Guy: Generic Republican: When male birth control is comparable to female birth control, your argument has merit. Otherwise, you're comparing apples to zodiacs.

Why? What would be the problem with insurance covering both male and female contraceptives?


Apologies, I meant to quote another post. It's been a long day. But I am completely in favour of insurance covering condoms, contraceptives, diaphrams, IUDs, vasectomies and whatever else you can think of. The Catholics don't like them? They don't have to use them, it's not like you can impregnate a pre-teen boy.
 
2012-03-02 09:46:27 PM

DrewCurtisJr: That is not a good example. At some point that woman decided she did want a child or be involved with the child, either through birth, adoption, or marriage.

Give me an example where a woman, simply by consenting to having sex, would be forced into paying child support for almost 20 years.


What does that have to do with anything? You asked if a woman who doesn't want a kid can nonetheless be made to contribute towards the kid's upbringing. It turned out she could. Now, I don't see what purpose this goalpost-moving could possibly have. Sure, you might come up with some highly specific, narrowly-defined scenarios where the law seems to be harsh on a particular man, but I could come up another half-dozen similarly nitpicked scenarios where the law comes up against the woman.

So it seems to me that you're looking at all these plausible scenarios, and ignoring all except the ones which seem to confirm your presupposition that men are being discriminated against. Which doesn't make the law misandrist - it just makes you, as someone stated upthread, a whiner.
 
2012-03-02 10:01:06 PM

The Why Not Guy: That's why I think one makes more sense. If they both covered the same condition, I wouldn't care which insurance covered.


So it makes more sense to cover high blood pressure medication than arthritis pills?

You're not very good at this.

Well, it's not easy explaining things to people who aren't very smart, because they get all defensive when they can't understand and try to be condescending when we are having an otherwise civil discourse.

Biological Ali: What does that have to do with anything?


Does this mean you can't think of one? Please humor me.
 
2012-03-02 10:07:25 PM
DrewCurtisJr

You're starting to embarrass yourself here. Or maybe you've just been trolling us, in which case I've got to say Mission Accomplished. You got me good.
 
2012-03-02 10:12:19 PM

DrewCurtisJr: So it makes more sense to cover high blood pressure medication than arthritis pills?


No, because both treat serious illnesses. The reason it makes more sense to me to cover male contraceptives than Viagra is because preventing unwanted pregnancy is a bigger benefit to society than making it possible for old men to fark.
 
2012-03-02 10:24:38 PM

Biological Ali: You're starting to embarrass yourself here.


I'll take that as a yes, you can't think of one.

Yes, I'm embarrassing myself because I'm the one who starting with the name calling and insults, just because some one happens to disagree with my position. Your selective judgment is not surprising.

The Why Not Guy: The reason it makes more sense to me to cover male contraceptives than Viagra is because preventing unwanted pregnancy is a bigger benefit to society than making it possible for old men to fark.


Not only old men need Viagra, but I think it is inappropriate to marginalize the need for older couples to have sexual intimacy. And no one is mandating coverage for it or male contraception. Why is that, not a single person has given me an answer to that.

/But don' bother because I won't see it
//It's Friday evening and I'm out. Have a nice night y'all.
 
2012-03-02 10:31:30 PM

Quasar: Force men seeking a vasectomy to have an ultrasound in their urethra, and mandate that they listen to their penile dickbeat.


Heh heh he hee heh. penile dickbeat.

Sounds like a name for a band.
 
2012-03-02 10:40:58 PM

DrewCurtisJr: /But don' bother because I won't see it


I knew we could agree on something.
 
2012-03-02 10:49:26 PM

DrewCurtisJr: I'll take that as a yes, you can't think of one.

Yes, I'm embarrassing myself because I'm the one who starting with the name calling and insults, just because some one happens to disagree with my position. Your selective judgment is not surprising.


On the off-chance that you're not trolling, consider the following:

A person comes up to you and says "Can you think of a single scenario where a man, after giving birth to a baby and leaving it in a public restroom, would be held responsible for neglecting or endangering a child?" To which you naturally reply "No." The person then follows up with "Well clearly, the laws are misogynistic then." To that, you might reasonably reply along the lines of "Your scenario has been contrived such that it can only possibly apply to a woman, that much is true. However, that doesn't change the fact that such laws are about the children being wronged, and aren't much concerned with whether it's a man or a woman involved - indeed, such laws would very much apply to a man too if he does anything to endanger a child. As such, your overly-specific hypothetical is neither here nor there."

Similarly, child support laws are there for the children, and can apply to both men and women depending on the circumstance. That you can painstakingly contrive one set of scenarios which would only apply to men would come across, to most reasonable people, as a trivial detail. If you then argued, on the basis of your contrived scenario, that there was some misandry going on, you would come across, to most reasonable people, as a whiner.
 
2012-03-02 11:40:55 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: DrewCurtisJr: The Why Not Guy: She's not the one whining... you are.

Because she made the choice she wanted. Why not let the man?

Jesus Christ, just quit whining and pay your child support and raise your kids, you fncking pussy.


Would it be ok for a prolifer to say "just quit whining and carry your kid to term instead of killing it, you irresponsible shiat."
 
2012-03-02 11:41:08 PM
I find it ridiculous that Fark DependentsTM equate a vasectomy with having an abortion. One is preventative birth control, the other is killing the horse after it gets out of the barn. The proper equitable procedure for a woman would be a hysterectomy or removal of the ovaries, not an abortion.
 
2012-03-02 11:51:30 PM

Lsherm: I find it ridiculous that Fark DependentsTM equate a vasectomy with having an abortion. One is preventative birth control, the other is killing the horse after it gets out of the barn. The proper equitable procedure for a woman would be a hysterectomy or removal of the ovaries, not an abortion.


Yeah, this woman was pretty far off the mark in attempting to put forth any sort of analogous "irony" bill. Is she whining about birth control or abortion?
 
ecl
2012-03-02 11:53:21 PM

DrewCurtisJr: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Yeah, well, if you don't understand how penises and uteri and courts and child support work I guess I'm sorry you were home-schooled but maybe you can talk your sister into the abortion anyway.

Nice contribution.


Yea Nina Hartleys awesome ass just ripped you a new one.
 
2012-03-03 12:30:25 AM
Yep... This is certainly the conversation the GOP wants to keep having in the coming months. It's a winner for them.

I'm starting to think the Democrats just turned the GOP's usual M.O. around on them... Control the narrative.

See you regressive assholes in November.
 
2012-03-03 12:35:46 AM
Hello Apple, this is an Orange.

Not even close to the same thing, we're not talking about getting your tubes tied. Learn to actually debate.
 
2012-03-03 12:55:09 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: DrewCurtisJr: The Why Not Guy: She's not the one whining... you are.

Because she made the choice she wanted. Why not let the man?

Jesus Christ, just quit whining and pay your child support and raise your kids, you fncking pussy.

Would it be ok for a prolifer to say "just quit whining and carry your kid to term instead of killing it, you irresponsible shiat."


Wow you're right those are exactly the same thing I feel so stupid now.
 
2012-03-03 01:02:38 AM

Methadone Girls: You forgot the part where you have to make stupid small talk with the person while they've got the probe in there.


So, how about those Dodger?

However, I'm concerned. Some of these closeted phobes might be strangely titillated by having medicos probe their nether regions. It's not a sin if it's a doctor with an approved device, right?
 
2012-03-03 02:04:48 AM

ecmoRandomNumbers: namegoeshere: I would like for a female to explain why they will be voting Republican in the next election. Anyone?

[i224.photobucket.com image 600x600]


what the hell is going on with her cameltoe? Do I want to know?
 
2012-03-03 02:12:51 AM
She should run for Congress.
 
2012-03-03 02:17:52 AM

Aarontology: Lucky LaRue: Aarontology: Someone should amend it so that men have to undergo a transanal probe beforehand.

And make them watch.

A prostate exam and vasectomy at the same time? Now you're just trying to make it fun, and that misses the point.

NO LUBE ON THE PROBE!


Prostate exams don't involve probes. It requires digital penetration.

/so i've heard
 
2012-03-03 02:33:53 AM

eagles95: FTFA: back-alley ballsnipper



I just thought this needed to be posted here because that is an awesome comment


It's a poetic phrase, but my nuts ache just reading it.
 
2012-03-03 08:03:45 AM

Lorelle: namegoeshere: I would like for a female to explain why they will be voting Republican in the next election. Anyone?

Those are the females who don't like the fact that a black man is in the White House.


This really sets the narrative for modern American liberalism. Make every issue about race, gender, or class. As long as you can find a bus for someone to sit at the back of, they'll vote for Democrats.

How do you equate refusal of some employers to pay for contraception with this politician's bill to ban vasectomies? Last time I checked, no one is asking the government to ban tubal ligation.

The repubs should vote for this so she can explain what she us trying to accomplish.
 
2012-03-03 08:06:50 AM

EnviroDude: quickdraw: EnviroDude: So if a girl gets preggers after taking the pill, will the government provide her with a free abortion? If a condom fails on a man, will the government provide a free snip-snip (complete with sick day wages, recovery and rehab)?

Yes actually. Depends on what state you are in. Most people understand that the cost to society for raising a new human to adulthood is infinitely higher than the cost of abortions or vasectomies. The drive to procreate will always trump logic. Throw alcohol into the mix and we may as well just admit that we are all just a few shots of tequila away from an unwise bit of rubby bumpy.

Then the logical step is to mandate state sanctioned abortions for all people that can not afford to adequately (as defined by the state) pay the needs of the fruit of their tequilla binges.

And if we do that, lets mandate that poor men, men that will grow fat and bald by 40, men that are abusive, alcoholic, convicted felons, etc. get the big snip so that they will not become half of the problems.


Woo-hoo!


That sort if thing was mandated by Progressives 100 years ago. Today's Progressives are a little behind.
 
2012-03-03 08:12:11 AM

Terrible Old Man: Hello Apple, this is an Orange.

Not even close to the same thing, we're not talking about getting your tubes tied. Learn to actually debate.


Not only that, but I don't send in an insurance claim to pay for my condoms, which by the way at least have some connection to humab health...


Learn to think rationally and pay for your own shiat, stupid liberal children.
 
2012-03-03 08:35:57 AM

Animatronik: Terrible Old Man: Hello Apple, this is an Orange.

Not even close to the same thing, we're not talking about getting your tubes tied. Learn to actually debate.

Not only that, but I don't send in an insurance claim to pay for my condoms, which by the way at least have some connection to humab health...


Learn to think rationally and pay for your own shiat, stupid liberal children.


Man along with going more and more crazy you are incredibly obnoxious.
 
Displayed 50 of 309 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report