Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Huffington Post)   Okay America, who wants the most extreme anti-abortion bill in the country? I see Michigan has its hand raised   (huffingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, Michigan, Scott Pelley  
•       •       •

4999 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Jun 2012 at 6:35 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-08 09:30:37 AM  

phenn: This will only send desperate women back to the black market. Which will probably result in more dead women. So, it's not really an answer.

I don't defend it as medically ethical (elective abortion), but I don't really want legislation of the unconstitutional variety to erase things I might personally find objectionable.

It's knee-jerk, it's responsive to special interest groups and it is intellectually dishonest.

Equal protection of law begins at birth. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is, IMO.


This is Michigan. It will send them to Canada. This is what Michigan women did before Roe v. Wade. That is what they will do now.

The thing that really worries me about the bill is whether or not it will outlaw Plan B. It should not because the NYT had article recently that showed that Plan B will not stop a fertilized egg from implanting. Of course, that won't stop people from lying and saying that it does. After all, the bogus claims the breast cancer and abortion are linked has been debunked numerous times. That still doesn't keep lying liars from trotting it out as a "fact."

Women should have two doses of Plan B on hand at all times. Carry one dose on your person and keep the other in your home. Plan B is analogous to a fire extinguisher. You don't wait to buy it until after you have the emergency.
 
2012-06-08 09:31:19 AM  
I take it these are small government conservatives amirite?
 
2012-06-08 09:31:27 AM  

Mercutio74: gulogulo: Yeah, I saw this happen: a good fly-over country girl got pregnant when contraception failed. Her father (and she) abhored abortion prior to this fact. BOTH changed their tune once she got pregnant.

That's surprising. As far as I know, what usually what happens is they just rationalize it for themselves, being a special case yadda yadda yadda, and then remain "pro-life" after the abortion.


This. I wish I could find a previous article about this phenomenon. Some change their tune entirely once they've "walked a mile" as it were. Most were just as you said and took the Mary Beth Sweetland approach and say it was OK for them to do it, but others blah blah blah.

One was completely dissonant, railing against abortion while she was in the office trying to get one.
 
2012-06-08 09:31:34 AM  
I'll just leave this here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk6gOeggViw
 
2012-06-08 09:32:38 AM  

Troublesome Strumpet: serial_crusher: Troublesome Strumpet: Except Utah did in fact try to codify such a belief into law last year. And I think a couple of other states tried to varying degrees of success as well.

No, they didn't.
A person commits criminal homicide if the person intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, with criminal negligence, or acting with a mental state otherwise specified in the statute defining the offense, causes the death of another human being, including an unborn child at any stage of its development.
Words, do they work?

Yes, they did.


So, you haven't really done much to argue why you think that blog post is relevant to anything, so I'm going to have to speculate. It's because she implies that the amended version of the bill added the "intentional or knowing" text? The text I originally quoted was the original bill. The amended version removed "recklessly, with criminal negligence, or acting with a mental state otherwise specified in the statute defining the offense" for clarity.

You'd have had a hard time establishing recklessness or criminal negligence in the case of a person who didn't know they were pregnant. (and since I don't have all of Utah's legal code committed to memory, I'll leave it up to you to cite whatever statute somebody might have violated that mentions "pregnant without knowing it" as a special mental state).
 
2012-06-08 09:33:32 AM  

gulogulo: serial_crusher:, I'm curious. Do you have a uterus? Ovaries?

If so, are you ok with the government telling you what you're allowed to do with them?

If not, you have no right to make rules for those that do.


The sad thing is that a woman sponsored that bill. Yes, it is ALEC-created legislation, but, whenever possible, they are trying to find a women to put her name on the bill. And, heaven help up, they are finding these women.
 
2012-06-08 09:35:46 AM  

Troublesome Strumpet: serial_crusher: Troublesome Strumpet: It might also take some time to scrape up the funds to be able to get an abortion

Are abortions usually a "cash up front" kind of thing? You can't like put 20% down and have them bill you for the rest? I sense a burgeoning business opportunity here. serial_crusher & Son's Abortion Loans.

If it takes you 5 months to save up the $500 or so that an abortion costs, I guess I should have some pity on you. I'm all in favor of government funded abortions for rape victims--to be billed to the rapist if he gets caught, obviously.

Pretty much.

I mentioned the BC masking pregnancy thing because that's what happened to me. By the time I found out I was about 14 weeks, and finally got the procedure done about 15. Cost was $800 at that point, had to borrow money from the bf's mother for that.


I think it's pretty courageous and bold to admit that. Thank you.

/100% sincere
 
2012-06-08 09:36:19 AM  

ksdanj: Unless you are the pregnant woman in question, it's really none of your farking business.


While I appreciate the blind sentiment, it is our business. It affects society. Society is everyone's business.
 
2012-06-08 09:37:34 AM  

ArcadianRefugee: Mercutio74: gulogulo: Yeah, I saw this happen: a good fly-over country girl got pregnant when contraception failed. Her father (and she) abhored abortion prior to this fact. BOTH changed their tune once she got pregnant.

That's surprising. As far as I know, what usually what happens is they just rationalize it for themselves, being a special case yadda yadda yadda, and then remain "pro-life" after the abortion.

This. I wish I could find a previous article about this phenomenon. Some change their tune entirely once they've "walked a mile" as it were. Most were just as you said and took the Mary Beth Sweetland approach and say it was OK for them to do it, but others blah blah blah.

One was completely dissonant, railing against abortion while she was in the office trying to get one.


I don't get why you guys find that mentality so interesting. Don't assholes try to rationalize their actions all the time? It's not exactly unique to the ones that get abortions.
 
2012-06-08 09:38:00 AM  
EXTREEEEEEEME!!!
 
2012-06-08 09:38:29 AM  

DeaH: gulogulo: serial_crusher:, I'm curious. Do you have a uterus? Ovaries?

If so, are you ok with the government telling you what you're allowed to do with them?

If not, you have no right to make rules for those that do.

The sad thing is that a woman sponsored that bill. Yes, it is ALEC-created legislation, but, whenever possible, they are trying to find a women to put her name on the bill. And, heaven help up, they are finding these women.


Yeah, they're the height of hypocrisy.
 
2012-06-08 09:38:30 AM  

serial_crusher: Troublesome Strumpet: serial_crusher: Troublesome Strumpet: Except Utah did in fact try to codify such a belief into law last year. And I think a couple of other states tried to varying degrees of success as well.

No, they didn't.
A person commits criminal homicide if the person intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, with criminal negligence, or acting with a mental state otherwise specified in the statute defining the offense, causes the death of another human being, including an unborn child at any stage of its development.
Words, do they work?

Yes, they did.

So, you haven't really done much to argue why you think that blog post is relevant to anything, so I'm going to have to speculate. It's because she implies that the amended version of the bill added the "intentional or knowing" text? The text I originally quoted was the original bill. The amended version removed "recklessly, with criminal negligence, or acting with a mental state otherwise specified in the statute defining the offense" for clarity.

You'd have had a hard time establishing recklessness or criminal negligence in the case of a person who didn't know they were pregnant. (and since I don't have all of Utah's legal code committed to memory, I'll leave it up to you to cite whatever statute somebody might have violated that mentions "pregnant without knowing it" as a special mental state).


I actually remember the original Fark thread about this very thing (which I couldn't find). It came down to this:

Do you really trust anti-choice chucklefarks to NOT abuse something like that due to its vague wording? Why leave that so open in a climate where there are people scrambling to reduce women to mere brood mares, consequences be damned?
 
2012-06-08 09:38:46 AM  

DeaH: gulogulo: serial_crusher:, I'm curious. Do you have a uterus? Ovaries?

If so, are you ok with the government telling you what you're allowed to do with them?

If not, you have no right to make rules for those that do.

The sad thing is that a woman sponsored that bill. Yes, it is ALEC-created legislation, but, whenever possible, they are trying to find a women to put her name on the bill. And, heaven help up, they are finding these women.


Maybe it's not quite the "war on women" you guys are claiming it is?
 
2012-06-08 09:39:19 AM  
Seems like Michigan is just continuing their effort to shut down the state.
 
2012-06-08 09:39:33 AM  

s2s2s2: ksdanj: Unless you are the pregnant woman in question, it's really none of your farking business.

While I appreciate the blind sentiment, it is our business. It affects society. Society is everyone's business.


This is the argument for universal healthcare and welfare as well.
 
2012-06-08 09:40:50 AM  

s2s2s2: ksdanj: Unless you are the pregnant woman in question, it's really none of your farking business.

While I appreciate the blind sentiment, it is our business. It affects society. Society is everyone's business.


Which is exactly why we should have universal healthcare and heavily subsidized higher education.
 
2012-06-08 09:41:36 AM  
Is Michigan a "stand your ground" state? Couldn't the mother claim self defense if she has to have an abortion to save her life?
 
2012-06-08 09:42:00 AM  
dahmers love zombie

"A fertilized egg is an unborn child" doesn't necessarily follow from "An unborn child is innocent life".

Also, there are many scenarios where "innocent" life can be unintentionally and prematurely ended. In some, it is reasonable for the government to act to prevent this, i.e. mandating seat belts. In other cases it is unreasonable, i.e. prohibiting alcohol (we tried that and it doesn't work). The lifestyle restrictions you propose for women of childbearing age certainly fall in the second category. For this reason they do not follow from the proposition that "an unborn child is innocent life."

All that said, I have a huge problem with this bill from Michigan. There should always be an exception granted for danger to the physical life of the mother, because abortion in that case is analogous to self-defense. Potential mothers certainly have other rights- the right not to be raped, the right to not carry their rapist's baby, the right to not experience the pain of childbirth if they do not wish to do so, the right to live the rest of their life as if they were never pregnant- but all of these rights are inferior to the fetus's basic right to live.

However, as I said before, just because a fetus is a person does not mean that all the restrictions you propose that might protect it are reasonable, because for most of them the benefit to the fetus is hypothetical (fertilized eggs die for any reason or no reason), while the detriment to women's quality of life is definite.
 
2012-06-08 09:42:20 AM  
One step closer to restoring women to their proper place:

Chattel chained at the feet of their male owner.

/I'm joking...
 
2012-06-08 09:42:33 AM  

derpdeederp: s2s2s2: ksdanj: Unless you are the pregnant woman in question, it's really none of your farking business.

While I appreciate the blind sentiment, it is our business. It affects society. Society is everyone's business.

This is the argument for universal healthcare and welfare as well.


Not mention freedom of religion. Your religion may prohibit abortion but not everyone's does.
 
2012-06-08 09:43:11 AM  

s2s2s2: ksdanj: Unless you are the pregnant woman in question, it's really none of your farking business.

While I appreciate the blind sentiment, it is our business. It affects society. Society is everyone's business.


How does a private medical decision affect society?

I'll tell you what affects society: Unwanted children born to women who are struggling as it is and/or on state healthcare. Those unwanted children cost taxpayers when they're taken to emergency rooms for illnesses the parents couldn't take care of before they got out of hand. They cost when some of those children are taken into the foster system. They cost when some of them are murdered and we end up footing the bill to house the parent who took their life. They cost when some of them grow up to be criminals themselves.

Thus, public expenditures for family planning care not only
help women to achieve their childbearing goals, but they also save public dollars: Our
calculations indicate that for every $1 spent, $4.02 is saved.
 
2012-06-08 09:44:22 AM  

Troublesome Strumpet: Do you really trust anti-choice chucklefarks to NOT abuse something like that due to its vague wording?


I don't see how that wording is any more vague than any other law. Have fun being paranoid.
 
2012-06-08 09:44:34 AM  

Carth: So a woman without health coverage wants an abortion because she can't afford the 20,000 it costs to give birth. Since the state forbade her from having an abortion will they make a program to cover the cost? Will the right to lifers step up and pay for the delivery or does the poor mother just get saddled with a lifetime of debt.


The dirty slut shouldn't have got pregnant had sex in the first place.

/this is what anti-choicers actually believe
 
2012-06-08 09:44:49 AM  

serial_crusher: Maybe it's not quite the "war on women" you guys are claiming it is?


So if one woman (or a hundred, or even a thousand) supports it, it can't possibly be a "war against women"?
 
2012-06-08 09:45:20 AM  

coco ebert: First Wisconsin, now Michigan? what's next- prayer in schools in Minnesota? I mean, does the Midwest really want the Bible Belt label?


Yes we are cutting off our hands and face to spite libs. Its all your fault I can't see or feel now you stupid occupy hippies! How's that hopey changey working out for you now?
 
2012-06-08 09:45:30 AM  

serial_crusher: DeaH: gulogulo: serial_crusher:, I'm curious. Do you have a uterus? Ovaries?

If so, are you ok with the government telling you what you're allowed to do with them?

If not, you have no right to make rules for those that do.

The sad thing is that a woman sponsored that bill. Yes, it is ALEC-created legislation, but, whenever possible, they are trying to find a women to put her name on the bill. And, heaven help up, they are finding these women.

Maybe it's not quite the "war on women" you guys are claiming it is?


Oh, it still is. She just doesn't see it as affecting her as should she or a daughter need it, they'll have a valid reason for it, as opposed to those filthy poor people who just can't keep their legs closed. . .
 
2012-06-08 09:45:38 AM  
As a man, I really don't get a say in this issue, but feel it's something of a tragic necessity, and should be legal, but used as rarely as possible. How do we make it rare? Easy, proactive and responsible birth control. Easy access to the pill, insurance coverage for longer lasting birth control methods (IUD, Vasectomies, etc), and comprehensive sex education.

If we could cut the unwanted pregnancy rates by half, I'd consider that a major victory.
 
2012-06-08 09:46:29 AM  

serial_crusher: DeaH: gulogulo: serial_crusher:, I'm curious. Do you have a uterus? Ovaries?

If so, are you ok with the government telling you what you're allowed to do with them?

If not, you have no right to make rules for those that do.

The sad thing is that a woman sponsored that bill. Yes, it is ALEC-created legislation, but, whenever possible, they are trying to find a women to put her name on the bill. And, heaven help up, they are finding these women.

Maybe it's not quite the "war on women" you guys are claiming it is?


I could point out that there is always a Fifth Column, but the logic behind your post is stunning in its lack of logic. So, in your opinion, if a white dude beats up a bunch of white dudes, he's not really committing violence? So if a few women will lend their name to taking a way full personhood from other women, then no one is really trying ti take away personhood from women?

Where did you go to school?
 
2012-06-08 09:46:41 AM  

s2s2s2: ksdanj: Unless you are the pregnant woman in question, it's really none of your farking business.

While I appreciate the blind sentiment, it is our business. It affects society. Society is everyone's business.


Just out of curiousity, what exactly is the societal benefit of forcing a woman to carry an anencephalic fetus to term, or to die because she had cancer but couldn't treat it while pregnant?
 
2012-06-08 09:46:42 AM  

Antimatter: As a man, I really don't get a say in this issue, but feel it's something of a tragic necessity, and should be legal, but used as rarely as possible. How do we make it rare? Easy, proactive and responsible birth control. Easy access to the pill, insurance coverage for longer lasting birth control methods (IUD, Vasectomies, etc), and comprehensive sex education.

If we could cut the unwanted pregnancy rates by half, I'd consider that a major victory.


Though your points are reasonable and your intent is good, you're missing the point. This is about punishing women for having sex, or wanting to make their own decisions. Plain and simple.
 
2012-06-08 09:47:11 AM  

s2s2s2: ksdanj: Unless you are the pregnant woman in question, it's really none of your farking business.

While I appreciate the blind sentiment, it is our business. It affects society. Society is everyone's business.


Specifically how does this particular medical procedure fall under the category of society's business?
 
2012-06-08 09:47:11 AM  

monoski: Not mention freedom of religion. Your religion may prohibit abortion but not everyone's does.


"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal rather than religion-specific values...it requires that their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason.

Now, I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, to take one example, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all." - Barack Obama
 
2012-06-08 09:47:29 AM  

serial_crusher: DeaH: gulogulo: serial_crusher:, I'm curious. Do you have a uterus? Ovaries?

If so, are you ok with the government telling you what you're allowed to do with them?

If not, you have no right to make rules for those that do.

The sad thing is that a woman sponsored that bill. Yes, it is ALEC-created legislation, but, whenever possible, they are trying to find a women to put her name on the bill. And, heaven help up, they are finding these women.

Maybe it's not quite the "war on women" you guys are claiming it is?


Uncle Tom's existed, hence, slavery was good.
 
2012-06-08 09:48:17 AM  

ghare: Flyover country has nothing left. Look at it; the young and/or educated are fleeing, leaving nothing but terrified, racist old white people.

Which wouldn't really be a problem, except now all those young people are glutting the market up on the east and west coast and making us lifers reduce our compensation to compete in the marketplace.


There's a lot of problems, actually, related to that shiat. These young people are churning babies out, which are glutting up our schools too, for example.

Not that it's their fault or anything, just kind of a natural, organic consequence of this kind of BS... but Philly's starting to encroach on Wilmington, and vice versa, via the Delaware Valley... And I'm not sure our infrastructure can handle it here in bumble-fark DEPAMD... What with our umpteen-trillion bridges, and one lane wide dirt roads...
 
2012-06-08 09:48:18 AM  
Damnit Michigan, stop trying to fark over the state more then it is.

/this state is driving me nuts
//would move if the wife hadn't just gotten a good promotion at work
 
2012-06-08 09:49:04 AM  

Wyalt Derp: Carth: So a woman without health coverage wants an abortion because she can't afford the 20,000 it costs to give birth. Since the state forbade her from having an abortion will they make a program to cover the cost? Will the right to lifers step up and pay for the delivery or does the poor mother just get saddled with a lifetime of debt.

The dirty slut shouldn't have got pregnant had sex in the first place.

/this is what anti-choicers actually believe


Medicaid covers childbirth and complications, if you have little income and resources. If you don't qualify for Medicaid, by definition you can come up with the money by other means. And if you'd rather spend that money on a nicer car or something else, then you're saying in the most literal sense of the word, "I'd KILL to have that nice car!"
 
2012-06-08 09:49:11 AM  
Gotta love these pro-life legislators who seem oblivious to certain facts:

1.) If you have a penis, you will NEVER have to personally cope with an unplanned pregnancy.
2.) The only thing there types of laws do is open the doorway for scumbags to perform this procedure unlicensed, unsafely, and unscrupulously.
3.) Do you HONESTLY think a woman makes it to the second or third trimester and is all 'Gee, I seriously don't want this.' NO. I know several women who have gotten the procedure, and those whose birth control failed them wanted it done immediately. One was developing a severe blood poisoning issue that had a 90% chance of a stillbirth and a 100% chance of her not making it through delivery. But these people who trot out 20 week abortions as a horror seem to ignore the logic that a woman who is 5+ months or later pregnant pretty much has already decided they want to continue the pregnancy. 'Gee, I'm 8 months along. What the hell was I thinking' simply doesn't farking happen!
 
2012-06-08 09:49:43 AM  
representative government at its finest

God damn you Republicans are really making it hard for me NOT to want to buy a gun. Something large that fires lots of projectiles at a very quick pace...
 
2012-06-08 09:49:49 AM  

serial_crusher: DeaH: gulogulo: serial_crusher:, I'm curious. Do you have a uterus? Ovaries?

If so, are you ok with the government telling you what you're allowed to do with them?

If not, you have no right to make rules for those that do.

The sad thing is that a woman sponsored that bill. Yes, it is ALEC-created legislation, but, whenever possible, they are trying to find a women to put her name on the bill. And, heaven help up, they are finding these women.

Maybe it's not quite the "war on women" you guys are claiming it is?


When a bill stipulates that the woman's life is less valuable than an undeveloped cell mass - then your argument is invalid.
 
2012-06-08 09:49:49 AM  

Antimatter: As a man, I really don't get a say in this issue, but feel it's something of a tragic necessity, and should be legal, but used as rarely as possible. How do we make it rare? Easy, proactive and responsible birth control. Easy access to the pill, insurance coverage for longer lasting birth control methods (IUD, Vasectomies, etc), and comprehensive sex education.


The minute I heard that "safe, legal and rare" platitude (especially when uttered by Bill Clinton who put a whole lot of emphasis on the "rare" part) I knew it was wrong --- it gave credence to all these attempts to stop women from exercising their constitutional right to abortion. As Douthat says, according to liberals, it's as important that it be rare as it is that it be legal and safe. So, why aren't we supporting all these crude attempts to talk women out of it? Link

I propose "safe, legal, and none of your goddamn business".
 
2012-06-08 09:50:00 AM  

AmorousRedDragon: Antimatter: As a man, I really don't get a say in this issue, but feel it's something of a tragic necessity, and should be legal, but used as rarely as possible. How do we make it rare? Easy, proactive and responsible birth control. Easy access to the pill, insurance coverage for longer lasting birth control methods (IUD, Vasectomies, etc), and comprehensive sex education.

If we could cut the unwanted pregnancy rates by half, I'd consider that a major victory.

Though your points are reasonable and your intent is good, you're missing the point. This is about punishing women for having sex, or wanting to make their own decisions. Plain and simple.


Well yeah, hence why i'm not in favor of restricting abortion. I'd not change a single access law, instead, i'm in favor of not making it necessary to begin with.

That's the difference between the folks who submit bills like this and folks on my side. They want to force births to punish women. I want to solve a public health concern.
 
2012-06-08 09:51:10 AM  

BeatrixK: 1.) If you have a penis, you will NEVER have to personally cope with an unplanned pregnancy.


I doubt the validity of this statement
 
2012-06-08 09:53:55 AM  

GentDirkly: Wyalt Derp: Carth: So a woman without health coverage wants an abortion because she can't afford the 20,000 it costs to give birth. Since the state forbade her from having an abortion will they make a program to cover the cost? Will the right to lifers step up and pay for the delivery or does the poor mother just get saddled with a lifetime of debt.

The dirty slut shouldn't have got pregnant had sex in the first place.

/this is what anti-choicers actually believe

Medicaid covers childbirth and complications, if you have little income and resources. If you don't qualify for Medicaid, by definition you can come up with the money by other means. And if you'd rather spend that money on a nicer car or something else, then you're saying in the most literal sense of the word, "I'd KILL to have that nice car!"


It is not at ALL that simple. I was lucky to be able to actually have someone who could lend me the money for mine, but not everyone is. And even if they do end up giving birth there's tons of other expenses that goes with having a child.

As for the nicer car. . . perhaps they need a car that won't die on them every week so they can get to work to support the family that got forced on them when abortions were put out of their reach by dried up old farts who lack empathy.
 
2012-06-08 09:55:44 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Antimatter: As a man, I really don't get a say in this issue, but feel it's something of a tragic necessity, and should be legal, but used as rarely as possible. How do we make it rare? Easy, proactive and responsible birth control. Easy access to the pill, insurance coverage for longer lasting birth control methods (IUD, Vasectomies, etc), and comprehensive sex education.

The minute I heard that "safe, legal and rare" platitude (especially when uttered by Bill Clinton who put a whole lot of emphasis on the "rare" part) I knew it was wrong --- it gave credence to all these attempts to stop women from exercising their constitutional right to abortion. As Douthat says, according to liberals, it's as important that it be rare as it is that it be legal and safe. So, why aren't we supporting all these crude attempts to talk women out of it? Link

I propose "safe, legal, and none of your goddamn business".


Did you read the rest of my post? I'd not make it rare by restricting access, or talking someone out of it. I'd make it rare by keeping people from getting pregnant to begin with.
 
2012-06-08 09:56:05 AM  

Antimatter: Well yeah, hence why i'm not in favor of restricting abortion. I'd not change a single access law, instead, i'm in favor of not making it necessary to begin with.

That's the difference between the folks who submit bills like this and folks on my side. They want to force births to punish women. I want to solve a public health concern.



Hence, when women such as Sandra Fluke voice concern over access to equal healthcare, or at least the standard of providing contraceptives under the same insurance that provides viagra, they get shamed in public as being sex-addicted whores. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. War on women, indeed. It's almost like these Republican gentlemen are afraid of a strong, confident liberal woman who knows what is best for her, they want the state to tell her. Old habits die hard, I guess.
 
2012-06-08 09:56:28 AM  
I will propose a strawman for humorous purposes.

These pro-life pious assholes believe that their god controls everything in the natural world. Now, keeping that in mind, realize that there are annually more miscarriages than abortions.

Accepting their (incorrect) reasoning that a zygote/fetus is a person, and therefore terminating it is actually murder - their god kills more babies than we do.

It turns out that the pro-lifers should be at war with god, not doctors providing abortion/contraception services.
 
2012-06-08 09:58:06 AM  

Antimatter: Did you read the rest of my post? I'd not make it rare by restricting access, or talking someone out of it. I'd make it rare by keeping people from getting pregnant to begin with.


I did, and I completely agree with it. That passage about "rare" strikes me as particularly insightful and I thought I'd share.
 
2012-06-08 09:58:15 AM  

AmorousRedDragon: Antimatter: Well yeah, hence why i'm not in favor of restricting abortion. I'd not change a single access law, instead, i'm in favor of not making it necessary to begin with.

That's the difference between the folks who submit bills like this and folks on my side. They want to force births to punish women. I want to solve a public health concern.


Hence, when women such as Sandra Fluke voice concern over access to equal healthcare, or at least the standard of providing contraceptives under the same insurance that provides viagra, they get shamed in public as being sex-addicted whores. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. War on women, indeed. It's almost like these Republican gentlemen are afraid of a strong, confident liberal woman who knows what is best for her, they want the state to tell her. Old habits die hard, I guess.


Conservatives think of women as little more then chattel. They are misogynists, plan and simple.
 
2012-06-08 09:58:21 AM  

Antimatter: Did you read the rest of my post? I'd not make it rare by restricting access, or talking someone out of it. I'd make it rare by keeping people from getting pregnant to begin with.


Which is why we NEED abstinence only sex education!!!!

/tee hee
 
2012-06-08 09:58:44 AM  

AmorousRedDragon: It's almost like these Republican gentlemen are afraid of a strong, confident liberal sentient woman who knows what is best for her, they want the state to tell her. who exist for more than reproductive reasons

 
Displayed 50 of 366 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report