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.

(Vimeo)   This is my body, not yours   (vimeo.com) divider line 1253
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

40136 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jul 2012 at 1:45 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1253 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-30 09:56:08 AM
Jesus what the fark is wrong with this thread?


Ohhhhh it cross posted to the main page.
 
2012-07-30 09:56:31 AM

Brubold: "This is my body, not yours."

I'm sure that's what the fetus would say if he/she could express his/her feelings on the matter.


Stop it. You know they can't have feelings.
 
2012-07-30 09:56:38 AM

kasmel: Sabyen91: Not take care of a child he is responsible for fathering.

/I know it happens all the time but it doesn't make it right or ethical.

See, this brings us to the heart of the entire debate.

At what point does the man become responsible for a child? The moment he consents to have sex? Why is that?

Seriously, I want you to think this through logically, not emotionally. I can completely understand that there are cultural pain points WRT dead-beat dads etc, but this is not what I'm talking about.

If a couple is married, and they decide to have children, and the father walks out and refuses to assist years later, that's an entirely different scenario. That guy is a douchebag. He signed up for kids. He consented, tacitly or explicitly for the responsibility of raising children.

I'm talking about two people, maybe just started dating, whatever, end up getting pregnant. The guy is not ready or simply not interested in being a father. Why is he held to being responsible for the life of a child anymore than the woman is? The woman can choose to have an abortion, but the guy is just stuck if the woman chooses to keep it?

So, we're comfortable with women not being responsible for the life of a child as a consequence of their consent to have sex. But we're also comfortable with a man being held responsible for the life of a child as a consequence of consent to have sex?

Can you see why it's less of a moral issue and more of an ethical one? It's a double standard. And while I wholly realize that a certain amount of those are inevitable as a consequence of our biology, I don't see this as an example of that.


Kasmel quite simply it is because LIFE AIN'T FAIR. So since LIFE AIN'T FAIR, we as people are forced to come up with the most ethical, sensible, and fair way to address this problem.

And the rather than having a bunch of men force women to have children they do not want and/or cannot afford (breaking news: there is more to raising a child than 20% of the father income) and rather than having a bunch of men forcing women to have abortions by refusing to take any responsibility for their own actions, the solution that society has come up with is if you impregnate a gal YOU will be responsible for the consequences of that action.

See, everyone takes some responsibility (as opposed to ALL of the responsibility being put on the women as it appears you would like to see done).
 
2012-07-30 09:56:48 AM
"That is your property. And I have the right to take it from you to kill the unborn child inside my body, you racist!"

/you have the right to kill the unborn child inside you
//you do not have the right to send the bill to someone to someone who finds your actions abhorrent
///very pro-choice
////hates kids
 
2012-07-30 09:56:51 AM

Jackson Herring: Jesus what the fark is wrong with this thread?


Ohhhhh it cross posted to the main page.


I guess today is a good day to update the ignore list.
 
2012-07-30 09:57:31 AM

LasersHurt: Pathman: but when it comes to the life of a human being, who is to decide when life begins?


"Not one religion or another," for one.


yes - i agree. and that is why religion doesn't at all pop up in any of my arguments.
you can make a cogent argument against abortion that is completely secular.

that's why this issue isn't resolved - both sides are "right"
there are reasonable arguments on both sides.
but for every reasonable one, it sure seems like there are 10 unreasonable ones... the "pro-life" side being more guilty of this than the "pro-choice" side. but only just.
 
2012-07-30 09:57:36 AM

OscarTamerz: Bucky Katt: OscarTamerz: p

Yeah! They should have legalized chicken farking while they were at it.

Whatever floats your boat but you can probably still find some states that don't have laws against it. Washington didn't until that Microsoft engineer Mr. Hand got himself killed getting ass farked by a horse and ruined it for the rest of you sick bastards.


You know more about bestiality than a rational person should. Maybe YOU are the sick bastard.
 
2012-07-30 09:58:21 AM

Pathman: but when it comes to the life of a human being, who is to decide when life begins?


I always thought the question itself was asinine... everyone knows life begins at conception. Life is the ability for a full DNA molecule to replicate itself. The question isn't when life starts, it's when does it become cruel to terminate that life i.e. when can it feel pain, as that is where the guilt originates.

The whole "soul" concept is equally asinine. Did mankind's ancestors 200k y.a. have souls? If so, how far back until they stopped having them?
 
2012-07-30 09:58:41 AM

Brubold: "This is my body, not yours."

I'm sure that's what the fetus would say if he/she could express his/her feelings on the matter.


But it can't, because it's a non-sapient clump of cells.
 
2012-07-30 09:58:54 AM

beta_plus: "That is your property. And I have the right to take it from you to kill the unborn child inside my body, you racist!"

/you have the right to kill the unborn child inside you
//you do not have the right to send the bill to someone to someone who finds your actions abhorrent
///very pro-choice
////hates kids


I find having my money taken to kill people half a world away abhorrent.
 
2012-07-30 09:59:04 AM

untaken_name: I like how women get the choice to abort or keep but they apparently don't have the choice to keep their legs closed.


Apparently men don't have any choice but to fark women who might choose to get an abortion either, since a lot of the arguments against abortion have to do with how unfair it is that a woman can choose to get an abortion, but a man has "no choice" in the matter.

If you're impregnating women and you don't even know about it until they want to have an abortion, maybe you'd better have a brain scan scheduled.
 
2012-07-30 09:59:09 AM
You want to reduce the number of abortions? Comprehensive sex ed and free birth control. Have a bowl of condoms on the front desk of every govt building in the country. Require all health insurance plans to cover the cost of hormone pills.

Hell, subsidize the porn industry for all I care.
 
2012-07-30 09:59:24 AM

Captain_Ballbeard: Toxicphreke: Well...I've been called someone with a small pecker and someone who can't find a woman to have sex with...oh and Shawn Kemp....but I'm still waiting for a rational rebuttal. Why does a man have to live with his choice to have sex but a woman does not? I have no problem with abortion in cases of rape rape or if they are medically necessarily, but as I pointed out, lifestyle choice is the main reason.


I know of only three chicks who have abortions, none of them were raped and all of them are sluts.


What's your point?
 
2012-07-30 09:59:31 AM

Pathman: there are reasonable arguments on both sides.
but for every reasonable one, it sure seems like there are 10 unreasonable ones... the "pro-life" side being more guilty of this than the "pro-choice" side. but only just.


What are some of the "unreasonable" arguments from the pro-choice side?
 
2012-07-30 10:00:14 AM

genner: gulogulo: Pathman: they're keeping babies alive that are born earlier and earlier. They save a child born at 21-22 weeks last year in Germany...

As a person in hte medical profession, you know full well how rare saving a child that young is.

Yeah I'm sure that the few that survived didn't feel it was worth the effort.


yes 10% or less.
so?
that's not the point i was trying to make.
from 23-24 weeks on the chances of that baby surviving a pre-term delivery start increasing exponentially with each passing week.
 
2012-07-30 10:01:31 AM

Pathman: genner: gulogulo: Pathman: they're keeping babies alive that are born earlier and earlier. They save a child born at 21-22 weeks last year in Germany...

As a person in hte medical profession, you know full well how rare saving a child that young is.

Yeah I'm sure that the few that survived didn't feel it was worth the effort.

yes 10% or less.
so?
that's not the point i was trying to make.
from 23-24 weeks on the chances of that baby surviving a pre-term delivery start increasing exponentially with each passing week.


Hence the ban on late-term abortions.
 
2012-07-30 10:01:31 AM
This is their music not yours.

At least credit the artists whose music you use.

/New Order Ceremony was an interesting choice though
 
2012-07-30 10:01:51 AM

Alphax: Xenomech: Not this stupid "it's my body" shiat again. Yes, it's your body, but you have another one -- with its own unique DNA and everything -- growing inside it.

If you value the 'body' inside more than the body outside, your morals aren't moral.


What if you value them both equally?
 
2012-07-30 10:03:26 AM

thespindrifter: Pre-born babies can't make cool, hip videos declaring their right over their own bodies, or speak in a voice to declare their right to choice to live, so some of us have to do it for them:

Abortion kills Blacks, Gays, Lesbians, Transgenderds, Cross-dressers, Bisexuals, Artists, Lawyers, Feminists, and other assorted Liberals and freaks.

On second thought, fûkc it, let the queers and idiots die in a vacuum machine, what the hell do we care?


Seems like all of the nuts are falling out of the tree on this thread. Not used to seeing so many nuts all at once.

/hateful nuts make the best spread(eagle)
 
2012-07-30 10:03:37 AM

LasersHurt: Wait, we send people who conceive aborted children to jail? And you missed my point - the firefighters take care of the fire FIRST. Then, yes, they do their business, but the service comes first.


Sure, why not? Let's pretend any flaws in your own analogy can be used to dismiss any responses. It's not like you post here to discuss anything, only to yell at people who think differently from you.

/and build them out of straw if the real ones turn your arguments back on themselves
//watch out, though, straw is flammable
 
2012-07-30 10:03:41 AM

Emracool the Aeons Hip: Pathman: but when it comes to the life of a human being, who is to decide when life begins?

I always thought the question itself was asinine... everyone knows life begins at conception. Life is the ability for a full DNA molecule to replicate itself. The question isn't when life starts, it's when does it become cruel to terminate that life i.e. when can it feel pain, as that is where the guilt originates.

The whole "soul" concept is equally asinine. Did mankind's ancestors 200k y.a. have souls? If so, how far back until they stopped having them?


yep. the question is definitely asinine. unfortunately they wrapped it up with the debate when they started saying "abortion is murder" because if you kill something that's alive, then it's murder.
that is idiotic for about a million reasons. so the other side countered with "life begins at birth"

As i've said, politically i'm pro-choice, but i definitely think abortion is "wrong" unless there is good medical reason for terminating that pregnancy. But don't get me wrong, if i hear about somebody getting murder on the street - i feel pity for the victim. If i hear about an abortion, i feel pity for the woman getting the procedure.

The Bill O'reilly abortion-clinic patient is a lie. Almost universally.
 
2012-07-30 10:03:43 AM

You're the jerk... jerk: It just is a debate where both sides refuse to discuss the other's position.


I'm pro-choice, and I will address it: it is a human life. Whether or not it is sentient (how much can we remember from being an infant?) or able to experience more than a goldfish at that point with no memory retention is another thing. At this point, we can't answer that question, but it is DNA human. Potential human. It hasn't fully developed yet, so to say that it will become a full human is also speculation. It might. It might not.

But, even if it does, if there are not resources to care for the child, does it make sense to bring it to term? Why is that more morally repugnant than other reasons we come up with for taking human lives? Why is it about morality concerning the individual, and not the morality of what is best for society? In most communal animals, young that cannot be cared for are spontaneously aborted, reabsorbed, or abandoned, because that is what is best for the species as a whole.

I think about society as a whole. You think about the individual fetus, no matter what the consequences are for that fetus once it is born. Who to say that an unwanted life is better life lived? That's the divide in my mind.
 
2012-07-30 10:04:51 AM

Toxicphreke: Don't want to get pregnant? Stick to farking other women then ladies. See it works both ways...that's my whole farking point. Everything works both ways except that men have all responsibility in cases of pregnancy but none of the rights or options. As it stands now most states do not even require that the father be notified. What if he wants a kid and his wife keeps aborting? Should he not have the right to know and find a new wife?


You poor baby. Isn't your issue simply, "How dare a woman be able to do something that a MAN can't do?" it must be frustrating to have to rail against biology your whole life, hating that men have a penis and women have a vagina that carries the babbies. MEN should be able to control the entire process of having children. How come MEN can't patent that process by which women make babbies and take it away from women? THEY HAVE TOO MUCH POWER. HOW UNFAIR.

Poor baby.
 
2012-07-30 10:05:23 AM

Pathman: LasersHurt: Pathman: but when it comes to the life of a human being, who is to decide when life begins?


"Not one religion or another," for one.

yes - i agree. and that is why religion doesn't at all pop up in any of my arguments.
you can make a cogent argument against abortion that is completely secular.

that's why this issue isn't resolved - both sides are "right"
there are reasonable arguments on both sides.
but for every reasonable one, it sure seems like there are 10 unreasonable ones... the "pro-life" side being more guilty of this than the "pro-choice" side. but only just.


I think it's much simpler than you think.

I'm curious as to the cogent, secular argument against abortion being available.
 
2012-07-30 10:06:07 AM

qorkfiend: Pathman: genner: gulogulo: Pathman: they're keeping babies alive that are born earlier and earlier. They save a child born at 21-22 weeks last year in Germany...

As a person in hte medical profession, you know full well how rare saving a child that young is.

Yeah I'm sure that the few that survived didn't feel it was worth the effort.

yes 10% or less.
so?
that's not the point i was trying to make.
from 23-24 weeks on the chances of that baby surviving a pre-term delivery start increasing exponentially with each passing week.

Hence the ban on late-term abortions.


and how do you define "late-term?"
Typically they define it as after 20 weeks.

Whatever point you pick, what about the day before?
that's (part of) what makes this discussion so complicated.

And late term abortions are not banned.
 
2012-07-30 10:06:19 AM

Tatterdemalian: LasersHurt: Wait, we send people who conceive aborted children to jail? And you missed my point - the firefighters take care of the fire FIRST. Then, yes, they do their business, but the service comes first.

Sure, why not? Let's pretend any flaws in your own analogy can be used to dismiss any responses. It's not like you post here to discuss anything, only to yell at people who think differently from you.

/and build them out of straw if the real ones turn your arguments back on themselves
//watch out, though, straw is flammable


... OH. Jeez, here I am, talking to you like you're a real person. Yeesh. I need better notes, there's too many of you these days.
 
2012-07-30 10:07:22 AM
Kind of a Hedonistic video. I only watched the first few pretty faces then got bored. Did they also show some used up old people coughing their lungs out, trying to make bail for their fifth DWI offense, and costing the public for their "I'm a special snowflake" choices?
 
2012-07-30 10:07:53 AM

Brubold: "This is my body, not yours."

I'm sure that's what the fetus would say if he/she could express his/her feelings on the matter.


When I was in the womb drinking in amnion NO ONE GAVE ME A HANDOUT.
 
2012-07-30 10:09:05 AM

genner: gulogulo: Pathman: they're keeping babies alive that are born earlier and earlier. They save a child born at 21-22 weeks last year in Germany...

As a person in hte medical profession, you know full well how rare saving a child that young is.

Yeah I'm sure that the few that survived didn't feel it was worth the effort.


As a tax payer, you're ok with paying for that effort? You realize that even if it's not coming from your taxes, it'll be coming from your insurance premiums. That's ok to you? If that impacts the availability of healthcare to other people who need it and now can no longer afford it, is that ok?
 
2012-07-30 10:09:28 AM

qorkfiend:
What are some of the "unreasonable" arguments from the pro-choice side?



have you been reading this thread?
 
2012-07-30 10:10:02 AM

ryarger: Do you want a cushy, lazy life? Get knocked up a half dozen time and life off the child support." Which happens in reality too often (and in the frenzied imaginations of right-wingers even more).


For real?

Unless you are talking about young celebrity starlets getting pregnant by rich old geezers (a ridiculous minority of situations but the vast majority seen on TV), I do not think you have any idea how much money most women get in child support and the fact that it is rarely enough to pay to raise a child, let alone a baby and a baby-momma.

Assuming the intention is to get pregnant by 6 different guys to get all that money, consider what kind of guy would impregnate a women who has 5 other kids and his likely salary.

/Again, it takes a HELLUVA lot more than 20% of a guy's pay check to raise a child as a single mother (the great majority of parenting duties fall on the single mom).
 
2012-07-30 10:11:03 AM

Pathman: qorkfiend:
What are some of the "unreasonable" arguments from the pro-choice side?


have you been reading this thread?


No, I just got here, and I'm not going to go looking through nearly 600 comments. Also, I think our ideas of what does and does not qualify as an "unreasonable argument" may differ, which is why I asked.
 
2012-07-30 10:12:02 AM
media.giantbomb.com

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-30 10:14:03 AM

LasersHurt: I'm curious as to the cogent, secular argument against abortion being available.


The only one that could make one would be the bleedingest heart of liberal that also advocates for a very robust social services safety net that would take care of all the poorest mothers and their children. A conservative could never make an argument for it without being a hypocrite.
 
2012-07-30 10:14:20 AM

Pathman: qorkfiend:
What are some of the "unreasonable" arguments from the pro-choice side?


have you been reading this thread?


Can you name some, please? What do you find unreasonable?
 
2012-07-30 10:15:13 AM

keylock71: As far as I'm concerned, once the woman is pregnant, the man is pretty much along for the ride. She's taking all the physical risk with the pregnancy, so, ultimately, it is her choice.

If she chooses to keep it, you are now partially responsible for raising and supporting that kid.

Fair? Nope... But life isn't fair, and compared to women, men have it pretty good in that department.


Yeah, but that's just it; it is HER risk that SHE has decided to take. Wouldnt it then follow that the result is therefore HER responsibility, and not the responsibility of a man who has no choice in the decision? If fair has nothing to do with it then why not do this? Sadly becoming aware i'm starting to repeat myself :(
 
Ant
2012-07-30 10:16:26 AM

untaken_name: I like how women get the choice to abort or keep but they apparently don't have the choice to keep their legs closed.


Are you for real? I'm sure they all keep their legs closed when you're around.
 
2012-07-30 10:17:34 AM

LasersHurt: I think it's much simpler than you think.

I'm curious as to the cogent, secular argument against abortion being available.


biologically, life begins at conception. That child has everything it needs to become a full-grown human being, except for time and nutrients.

If that child is alive, then it has rights. Rights that preclude it's premature termination for reasons other than medical (either for the child or for the mother)

If you look at it from the other end, obviously you can not "terminate" that child after it is born and you are legally obligated to care for it once it's born. What difference does that 5 seconds or 5 inches before or after birth make?

Is it moral to terminate a child immediately after birth?
Is it moral to terminate a child immediately before birth?
if not, what about 5 minutes before birth? or 5 hours? or 5 days?
where do you draw the line?

I would argue that this is almost impossible to do so unequivocally which is in and of itself a secular and reasonable argument against abortion for the sole purpose of terminating an unwanted pregnancy.


Just to be 100% clear, politically i am pro-choice - I understand the argument. I am just trying to make the point that it's not just about religion vs the left (even though the religious right nutbags have done everything in their power to co-opt it). In fact what could be more "left-wing" than trying to protect the rights of an unborn child?

I've always found the pro-choice, anti death penalty stance to be a hard position to swallow.
 
2012-07-30 10:18:15 AM

thenewmissus: Herr Flick's Revenge: Why is this crap coming up?
Abortions are legal.
You want one, have at it.
You want me to pay for it?
Nope, unless I was involved in getting you pregnant.

YOUR TAX DOLLARS DON'T PAY FOR ABORTIONS. Jeesh!!!!! How many times does this have to be repeated???????? Stop spreading lies. I can't stand to watch people say that crap. Fundies want to think that their tax dollars goes to abortions so that they can feel justified about sticking their noses into your business. If they pay for it, then they can complain about it. NOT ONE PENNY OF FEDERAL TAXES GO TO PAY FOR ABORTIONS.

//willfull ignorance is a very ugly characteristic to possess
///guess what else is fundamental????? READING



http://www.gynpages.com/ACOL/category/medicaid.html

There are a number of abortion clinics that accept Medicaid. Last I checked, Medicaid was Federally funded.
 
2012-07-30 10:19:37 AM

digitalrain: http://www.gynpages.com/ACOL/category/medicaid.html

There are a number of abortion clinics that accept Medicaid. Last I checked, Medicaid was Federally funded.


In U.S. politics, the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortions.[1] It is not a permanent law, rather it is a "rider" that, in various forms, has been routinely attached to annual appropriations bills since 1976. The Hyde Amendment applies only to funds allocated by the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. It primarily affects Medicaid. Link
 
2012-07-30 10:20:11 AM

LiberalConservative: Yeah, but that's just it; it is HER risk that SHE has decided to take. Wouldnt it then follow that the result is therefore HER responsibility, and not the responsibility of a man who has no choice in the decision? If fair has nothing to do with it then why not do this? Sadly becoming aware i'm starting to repeat myself :(


At what point does the man have to assume any responsibility, then? Like I said before, a woman can never be absolved of it. Ever. Right now the system equalizes that by giving her the final choice. The system you propose involves zero responsibility or risk to a man.
 
2012-07-30 10:21:57 AM
American women don't need men. They have the government to take care of them.

I'd personally defund Planned Parenthood and eliminate it. You want your birth control, you go pay for it. You want breast cancer screenings? You go pay for it.

After all, it's your body.
 
2012-07-30 10:22:32 AM

gulogulo: genner: gulogulo: Pathman: they're keeping babies alive that are born earlier and earlier. They save a child born at 21-22 weeks last year in Germany...

As a person in hte medical profession, you know full well how rare saving a child that young is.

Yeah I'm sure that the few that survived didn't feel it was worth the effort.

As a tax payer, you're ok with paying for that effort? You realize that even if it's not coming from your taxes, it'll be coming from your insurance premiums. That's ok to you? If that impacts the availability of healthcare to other people who need it and now can no longer afford it, is that ok?


Yes I'll gladly pay higher insurance premiums so people can live.
Is that wrong, should I not have done that?
 
Ant
2012-07-30 10:22:42 AM

Toxicphreke: What about the man's right to have a child? A man is on the hook for child support should a woman have the child, but the man...any man, including a husband, has zero say in stopping an abortion. If a woman can chose to have the kid or not after the sex, why can't a man choose to support the kid after having sex? Nope...once a man has sex with a woman, there is no turning back. He is committed to support the kid.Women though...they get a get out of jail free card. I say let women have abortions and chose not to be mothers when you stop forcing men to be fathers.


Boo-farking-hoo. Wear a condom and quit your whining.
 
2012-07-30 10:23:59 AM

genner: gulogulo: genner: gulogulo: Pathman: they're keeping babies alive that are born earlier and earlier. They save a child born at 21-22 weeks last year in Germany...

As a person in hte medical profession, you know full well how rare saving a child that young is.

Yeah I'm sure that the few that survived didn't feel it was worth the effort.

As a tax payer, you're ok with paying for that effort? You realize that even if it's not coming from your taxes, it'll be coming from your insurance premiums. That's ok to you? If that impacts the availability of healthcare to other people who need it and now can no longer afford it, is that ok?

Yes I'll gladly pay higher insurance premiums so people can live.
Is that wrong, should I not have done that?


And the people that can't afford the increase in premiums and suffer, you're ok with that? You'll trade their lives for the 10% chance of saving a potential life? Is that right?
 
2012-07-30 10:24:32 AM

Ant: Toxicphreke: What about the man's right to have a child? A man is on the hook for child support should a woman have the child, but the man...any man, including a husband, has zero say in stopping an abortion. If a woman can chose to have the kid or not after the sex, why can't a man choose to support the kid after having sex? Nope...once a man has sex with a woman, there is no turning back. He is committed to support the kid.Women though...they get a get out of jail free card. I say let women have abortions and chose not to be mothers when you stop forcing men to be fathers.

Boo-farking-hoo. Wear a condom and quit your whining.


If you wanna get laid without the worry of pregnancy and child support, might I suggest the gay?
 
2012-07-30 10:25:21 AM

Pathman: biologically, life begins at conception.


"When life begins" is a religious issue. Your entire "secular" argument is predicated upon a religious belief. I award you no points, and may your god have mercy on your soul.
 
2012-07-30 10:25:45 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: digitalrain: http://www.gynpages.com/ACOL/category/medicaid.html

There are a number of abortion clinics that accept Medicaid. Last I checked, Medicaid was Federally funded.

In U.S. politics, the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortions.[1] It is not a permanent law, rather it is a "rider" that, in various forms, has been routinely attached to annual appropriations bills since 1976. The Hyde Amendment applies only to funds allocated by the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. It primarily affects Medicaid. Link


Well...I feel sheepish.

i.ytimg.com

How, then, can abortion clinics accept Medicaid?
 
Ant
2012-07-30 10:26:04 AM

Toxicphreke: Give the men a chance to maintain their lifestyle.


Your choices:
1) Wear a condom
2) Don't have sex
3) Get a vasectomy

Looks like you have lots of choices.
 
2012-07-30 10:27:03 AM

RedT: For real?

Unless you are talking about young celebrity starlets getting pregnant by rich old geezers (a ridiculous minority of situations but the vast majority seen on TV), I do not think you have any idea how much money most women get in child support and the fact that it is rarely enough to pay to raise a child, let alone a baby and a baby-momma.


You have little experience with:
(a) the very rural deep south
(b) the very urban inner city
(c) the right's vision of welfare queens in fur coats

Women *do* make a "career' out of pregnancy. It is a very meager existence.
 
Displayed 50 of 1253 comments

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report