Doctor Funkenstein: I'm really at a loss as to what the GOP thinks they are accomplishing with this whole "down with women" thing.

I'm wondering this as well. The only thing I can think of is it's some kind of heavy-handed "Stir up the base" strategy. The real question is why they are continuing this strategy that's obviously completely backfiring.

Okay, so after having actually read the article...

...holy shiat, are we over-reacting. Seriously. To the point where we're starting to sound like Republicans.

The dude basically said that, in his opinion, people should be jointly responsible for the babies they make. It shows how far over the edge of hyper-partisan douchebaggery we've gone when a statement like that could cause this much uproar. It's true that I've been as guilty as anyone, but normally I like to know that I have a good reason for calling Republican lawmakers "filthy scumbags." They normally do not disappoint. However, in this case, one guy said "Men should be financially responsible for their children, and should also have some sort of input as to whether their child is aborted."

Were we not all so committed to the idea of attacking Republicans, (and again, I'm more guilty than anyone of this) I think most of us could agree, in principle at least, that men, when possible, should be involved in the abortion decision to at least the extent of being able to give an opinion. It's their kid too.

Now, as for the inevitable Rape strawman, (which I love to break out myself in abortion discussions), I think you'd really have to stretch to say that the guy was talking about rapists. Rape constitutes less than 1% of all abortions. Yet it's the 1% that those of us on the Left use to bludgeon anyone who disagrees with us, even though most Republicans (Santorum voters notwithstanding) have already conceded that rape and incest are special cases, and need to be dealt with differently.

The fact is that most abortions are done for one reason: "I just don't want a child right now." While that's certainly the woman's choice, have we really become such intransigent assholes (and yes, I know we obviously have) that we're not even willing to allow one dude in Alaska the privilege of personally believing that just MAYBE a woman could, you know, mention to her husband or partner that oh, by the way, she's carrying their child, and she's decided to abort it?

fark, the guy didn't even propose that they make it a law. He just mentioned it in passing. And it doesn't seem like that ridiculous of an opinion- at least not in a year where Santorum is LITERALLY saying that twelve-year-olds should die trying to give birth to their rapist's baby.

Geeze. Let's not be the parody of ourselves that Republicans would love for us to become.

Ant: fizzled: Ant: fizzled: So if he wants to get out of his responsibility, he has no recourse before the birth and only an illegal recourse after.

You sure about that? If you're going to be screwing lots of random women, how about wearing a condom, or even getting a vasectomy?

Again, the same statements could be applied to women, but never are. If you're going to be screwing lots of random guys, how about using birth control, or even getting your tubes tied?

I'm talking to you, the guy who's worried about having his life ruined by a one night stand. Don't expect all the women you sleep with to be as cognizant of the risks. Protect yourself, and you likely won't even have to worry about it.

That's great, very wise. I suppose anyone walking around the city after dark that gets mugged and/or shot simply wasn't protecting themselves either, so why should we make it illegal for the mugger/shooter?

Of course men need to take responsibility. All I'm saying is, so do women.

Incidentally, you don't know shiat about me personally, so you're mistaken, you have no clue who you're talking to.

turbidum: Skyrmion:
Your argument is begging the question, specifically with regard to what is buried under the term "risks".

Under an egalitarian of laws, we could say that men having sex accept the risk of a pregnancy, and therefore the responsibility of paying for an abortion (if he doesn't want to be a parent) or partial financial support of a child (if he does). This is the same choice women are presented with.

You're framing this as a child support issue. It's not. This is about the right of a woman over her own body. Alan Dick is looking to curtail these rights.

We are admittedly having a slightly tangential discussion. See my response to dericwater above. I oppose any woman being forced to carry a pregnancy to term that she doesn't not want to.

Rug Doctor: This is what hardcore Christians actually believe. Which makes you wonder why any woman would be a hardcore Christian.

I know what you mean about hardcore. I have an atheist friend, who was married to a wiccan-belief of the week woman. She drove him so nuts he ended up putting a gun in his mouth. Luckily he didn't pull the trigger but he did have to have his son dna tested, just so he could be sure he was his.
He's in another state now, hiding from her and her family, she's committed somewhere, both hardcore to the bone.
Good thing everyone in a group isn't the same as everyone else in a group, sometimes people even get misidentified. Use those labels carefully.

Mikey1969: You know what the worst part is? The guy actually has a point... Not about the permission slip and all, but about the part that the woman gets to make all the choices, but the guy doesn't get to opt out of paying child support.

This has already been addressed about 75 times in this thread alone. Men have the choice to not fark someone if they don't like the odds. That's your choice. I'm sorry you don't think that you should have to control yourself like that, and then want to blame the woman.

mod3072: If a woman has a 1 night stand, gets pregnant, and chooses to keep the baby, even against the will of the father, it's her God-given right to collect money from the father for the next 18-years.

I already farking told you--then take it up with the courts. Yes, it is a "god-given right," to decide what to do with the baby, because she carries it. It is the decision of the family court to make a man pay or not if he's stupid enough to go around knocking up women that he doesn't trust, and that is on YOU.

I'm sorry so many of you can't even comprehend controlling your dicks.

fizzled: That's great, very wise. I suppose anyone walking around the city after dark that gets mugged and/or shot simply wasn't protecting themselves either, so why should we make it illegal for the mugger/shooter?

When was the last time a woman came up to you in a dark alley and repeatedly forced your penis into her vagina? Because that's never happened to me before...

Skyrmion: I oppose any woman being forced to carry a pregnancy to term that she doesn't not want to.

Dammit. I mean, "that she doesn't want to".

Pincy: mod3072: So, in summary: If a woman has one-night stand and gets knocked up, it's her God-given right to shirk her responsibilities as a parent and have an abortion

I'm going to stop reading right there because you are basically implying that pregnancy is a punishment for having sex and I can't take you seriously after that.

I did not in any way imply that, and I have no idea how you reached that conclusion.

Dusk-You-n-Me: Having an abortion is taking responsibility.

No, it's avoiding responsibility.

I'd love to stay an argue with you all, but I have an appointment I need to get to. Have fun insulting me while I'm gone!

heap: i like random capitalization. it's like exclamation points you can't wait until the end of the sentence for.

it balances out my own personal shift key phobia, too.

This is amazing. I love you so much.

Wicked Chinchilla: Doctor Funkenstein: I'm really at a loss as to what the GOP thinks they are accomplishing with this whole "down with women" thing.

Likewise. I don't get how the discourse veered this far into crazy land in the first place along with how they keep doubling down on it everytime it seems to sort of fade. Its like they are intentionally trying to keep it in the news as much as is possible.

/alienating 51% of the United States is no way to get reelected son. But Obama thanks you.

There are plenty of women who wholeheartedly agree with his statement, especially in places like Alaska. (Although I do believe that Alaska also has the highest ratio of roughnecking women to men in the industry.) These are the GOP's base, they're actually alienated by the suggestion that women should be able to make major decisions and boss men around, though strangely nagging doesn't count as bossing a man around. The attitude is most prevalent among anyone who lived through the late 40's and early 50's as a child or parent, who skipped the whole hippie generation - the millions of immigrant women with that attitude don't vote so they don't count.

turbidum: Skyrmion:
Your argument is begging the question, specifically with regard to what is buried under the term "risks".

Under an egalitarian of laws, we could say that men having sex accept the risk of a pregnancy, and therefore the responsibility of paying for an abortion (if he doesn't want to be a parent) or partial financial support of a child (if he does). This is the same choice women are presented with.

You're framing this as a child support issue. It's not. This is about the right of a woman over her own body. Alan Dick is looking to curtail these rights.

I agree that there should be a discussion about whether a man should be able to sign away his parental rights and walk away from it all. Personally, I believe that we as a society have a vested interest in securing the rights of the child (child meaning a baby that's been born), and allowing men to walk away punishes the child more than anything. This is one of those things where I'm a sure a solution that pleases no one can be found (i.e. a compromise).

But that's a separate discussion. Alan Dick and his ilk are talking about it in moral terms, not fiscal.

fizzled: You mean like the risk she might get pregnant and have a baby? Except that that isn't really a big risk, since she can just go have an abortion...

So to finish Smelly's statement: Then she should shut the fark up and realize that there are consequences to her actions. (except when current law says there aren't, I suppose)

You're a piece of shiat for acting like having an abortion is an easy thing. Does Jackie Speier really have to go up in front of Congress and talk about her abortion again to drive it home that no one makes those decisions lightly?

And you're a dumbass if your best argument is "you're a piece of shiat." It doesn't matter if the decision is easy or not. What matters is that it is solely her decision with no input required from the other party involved. And I'm not suggesting she should have to have an abortion just because he wants it. Incidentally, I don't think that is what TFA's subject was suggesting either. We're just saying the guy should have some say or rights as well.

Remind me again why Republicans don't like Islam?

Kahabut: Pincy: Kahabut: It's simple really... it takes two to make a baby. Why does it only take one to make choices for that baby?

Because only one of them actually carries the baby in her body. Did you not take a high school biology class?

So then the woman takes the choice, she can take the financial responsibility too. Or didn't they teach you ethics at school? Concepts of common law? Equality? Did you somehow come to believe that one person can make a choice and someone else is supposed to pay for it? Is that really what you believe?

How droll.

Sorry, you can't have pure equality in this case because men don't have the choice to get pregnant, it only works one way.

Let's say there was no such thing as abortion. Would you still be arguing that a man shouldn't have to pay child support if he didn't want anything to do with the baby? In that scenario men would know that the risk of sex is pregnancy and child support because there is no abortion.

Are things different because there is a possibility of abortion? For the woman yes, for the man, no, because it's not his choice, just like it's not his choice in a world without abortion. His choice is having sex in the first place. The fact that a woman can choose to have an abortion doesn't change that. What you're implying is that the man should somehow have a say in the woman's decision to have an abortion. It's like you are trying to punish her for not choosing to have one.

mod3072: Have fun insulting me while I'm gone!

Socialist.

Ant: fizzled: That's great, very wise. I suppose anyone walking around the city after dark that gets mugged and/or shot simply wasn't protecting themselves either, so why should we make it illegal for the mugger/shooter?

When was the last time a woman came up to you in a dark alley and repeatedly forced your penis into her vagina? Because that's never happened to me before...

It's called a metaphor. Look it up.

If you are trying to refer to rape, I've already stated reason exceptions should be made. You can look that up in this thread, too.

Best Republican back-pedaling EVAH:

(FTFA) "I'm just making a statement, I'm not passing laws," he said.

Scuze me, Dick, but you're a legislator! You are passing laws! Did you somehow miss that section of your job description?

Moran.

demaL-demaL-yeH: dennysgod: Just to play devils advocate, he's kinda got a point.

If the women wants to keep the child and the guy doesn't, he can get screwed over. But if he wants the child and she doesn't, then tough shait pal. Unless it was rape, it was a mutual decision to f*ck that lead to the pregnancy so it should be a mutual decision to what becomes of the fertilized egg.

Maybe while you're suggesting "permission slips" from the father for an abortion you can also go the other way, If some women becomes pregnant and wants the child but the man doesn't he should be nulled of all further responsibility at that point, after all it's her choice to keep the baby...not his.

Until a man can carry a fetus to term, your position results in slavery.

/Congratulations, you and Representative Dick have something in common.
//We could be energy-independent if we could harness the potential power from Honest Abe's grave.




/all to easy

illegal.tender: Democrats want women continue to be free and equal, to get paid the same amounts as men for the same job, and so forth.

Republicans want women to be subservient and powerless.

Make your choice.


But they both seem equally bad. I don't know who I should vote for.

dugitman: cryinoutloud: Last I heard, I can't make a man fark me, or stop him from getting a vasectomy. Sounds like you have all the control you need.

My wife had to sign off on my vasectomy. Granted, that was my clinic's policy and not a law.

I had a vasectomy back in my early 30s. My wife wanted it as much as I did. But if the urologist would have required my wife to sign something before he did the vasectomy I would have promptly found a different one. My body, my decision.

fizzled: And you're a dumbass if your best argument is "you're a piece of shiat." It doesn't matter if the decision is easy or not. What matters is that it is solely her decision with no input required from the other party involved. And I'm not suggesting she should have to have an abortion just because he wants it. Incidentally, I don't think that is what TFA's subject was suggesting either. We're just saying the guy should have some say or rights as well.

No, that's not part of my argument, just an assessment of you. No one who thinks that women cavalierly have abortions, that it isn't a "big risk," is a piece of shiat.

I don't argue with pieces of shiat. Not worth it.

cryinoutloud:

I'm sorry so many of you can't even comprehend controlling your dicks.


Millions of years of evolution has made our dicks control us.

Just say'n.

DarwiOdrade: fizzled: Ant: fizzled: That's great, very wise. I suppose anyone walking around the city after dark that gets mugged and/or shot simply wasn't protecting themselves either, so why should we make it illegal for the mugger/shooter?

When was the last time a woman came up to you in a dark alley and repeatedly forced your penis into her vagina? Because that's never happened to me before...

It's called a metaphor. Look it up.

Most people call it a false-equivalence. Look it up.

Metaphors are pretty much falsely equivalent by nature. The point is not to provide an equivalent situation, it is to provide a similar enough situation to help look at something from a different perspective.

fizzled: Ant: fizzled: That's great, very wise. I suppose anyone walking around the city after dark that gets mugged and/or shot simply wasn't protecting themselves either, so why should we make it illegal for the mugger/shooter?

When was the last time a woman came up to you in a dark alley and repeatedly forced your penis into her vagina? Because that's never happened to me before...

It's called a metaphor. Look it up.

If you are trying to refer to rape, I've already stated reason exceptions should be made. You can look that up in this thread, too.

Your metaphor sucks. Preventing yourself from getting a woman pregnant (something you have full control over) cannot be compared to preventing yourself from being mugged (something over which you have very limited control).

Psycoholic_Slag: cryinoutloud:

I'm sorry so many of you can't even comprehend controlling your dicks.


Millions of years of evolution has made our dicks control us.

Just say'n.

Some of us haven't evolved enough yet to overcome the urges of our Neanderthal brothers :-)

Kahabut: So then the woman takes the choice, she can take the financial responsibility too. Or didn't they teach you ethics at school? Concepts of common law? Equality? Did you somehow come to believe that one person can make a choice and someone else is supposed to pay for it? Is that really what you believe?

How droll.

It's not like child support is a one sided deal - it's meant to pay for half of the cost of raising the child. To pretend the man did not make a choice to have a child is to pretend like the man didn't choose to have intercourse. The man and woman both have a choice at that moment, they both choose to run the risk of having a child.

The man actually gets off the hook for 9 months - during the entire pregnancy, he is not making any child support payments, whereas the woman is paying for the child in one form or another (doctor visits, health concerns, etc.). Only once the baby is born does the man become responsible.

Since he has no responsibility during that gestational period, he does not get to make any decisions regarding the child during said period.

it's nice to see that 90% of you didn't even read the article, as usual.

cryinoutloud: I'm sorry so many of you can't even comprehend controlling your dicks.

And I'm sorry that you only value personal responsibility when it's convenient.

So if we outlaw abortion then all men will stop complaining about having to pay child support?

turbidum: fizzled: And you're a dumbass if your best argument is "you're a piece of shiat." It doesn't matter if the decision is easy or not. What matters is that it is solely her decision with no input required from the other party involved. And I'm not suggesting she should have to have an abortion just because he wants it. Incidentally, I don't think that is what TFA's subject was suggesting either. We're just saying the guy should have some say or rights as well.

No, that's not part of my argument, just an assessment of you. No one who thinks that women cavalierly have abortions, that it isn't a "big risk," is a piece of shiat.

I don't argue with pieces of shiat. Not worth it.

Well, congratulations on being the bigger man. "I disagree with you, ergo you are a piece of shiat." See? I can put words in your mouth, too.

Pincy: Psycoholic_Slag: cryinoutloud:

I'm sorry so many of you can't even comprehend controlling your dicks.


Millions of years of evolution has made our dicks control us.

Just say'n.

Some of us haven't evolved enough yet to overcome the urges of our Neanderthal brothers :-)


Some of us haven't evolved past Neanderthal. You should see the mighty uni-brow I'd be sporting if I didn't shave that sh*t.

Psycoholic_Slag: Pincy: Psycoholic_Slag: cryinoutloud:

I'm sorry so many of you can't even comprehend controlling your dicks.


Millions of years of evolution has made our dicks control us.

Just say'n.

Some of us haven't evolved enough yet to overcome the urges of our Neanderthal brothers :-)


Some of us haven't evolved past Neanderthal. You should see the mighty uni-brow I'd be sporting if I didn't shave that sh*t.

Ha, my wife is constantly plucking the middle of mine out.

Ant: fizzled: Ant: fizzled: That's great, very wise. I suppose anyone walking around the city after dark that gets mugged and/or shot simply wasn't protecting themselves either, so why should we make it illegal for the mugger/shooter?

When was the last time a woman came up to you in a dark alley and repeatedly forced your penis into her vagina? Because that's never happened to me before...

It's called a metaphor. Look it up.

If you are trying to refer to rape, I've already stated reason exceptions should be made. You can look that up in this thread, too.

Your metaphor sucks. Preventing yourself from getting a woman pregnant (something you have full control over) cannot be compared to preventing yourself from being mugged (something over which you have very limited control).

Abstinence works both ways, and is incidentally another very popular topic among conservatives. Besides abstinence, nobody has full control over it. Condoms break, BC doesn't always work, even the surgeries are not 100% effective. But both sides can take steps to reduce the risk, just as I can reduce the risk of getting mugged by avoiding risky situations like walking around a city after dark.

Weaver95: these guys DO know that 'the Handmaids tale' was FICTION, right? that they weren't supposed to actually try and make society into what the book describes?


Well considering that Canadian conservatives don't know who Atwood is, I wouldn't expect American Republicans to either.

Who is Margaret Atwood? (new window)

Sasquatchuan: From the above source: "Nothing says "freedom" or "the 1950's" like having your husband sign a permission slip before you get surgery," wrote the satirical web site Jezebel."

Jezebel is satire? What is it satirizing?

Itself, mainly.

Isn't the most popular hot book amongst all the trendy ladies a BDSM romp?

So, yeah, they should be submissice. They like it like that.

Colossians 3:18
1 Peter 3:1
Ephesians 5:21-32

These all say the same thing. "Wives be submissive". It's in the Bible, a book written by man that is not only full of numerous contradictions, but is open to a myriad of interpretations. Point this out, and you attack their God and their belief system. They think they are 'enlightened' because they don't believe in religious superstition like Apollo and sun chariots or Zeus and thunder bolts.

Even if you share this so-called "Cristian" belief system, it is not surprising that they choose to ignore the adjacent scripture passages that call for all husbands to submit to Christ and love their wives as they would themselves. In the most quoted of the above passages (Ephesians 5) Of the 13 verses which constitute this text, only 3 1/2 verses are directed to the wives, while the remaining verses are directed toward the husbands.

Today's 'religious right' are composed of the Sadducees (wealthy 'church officials) and Pharisees (political/social 'purity-obsessed' hypocrites who miss the point of Christ's teachings completely). They know not God, that think to please him with making themselves miserable.