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)   Attention Women, GOP Senatorial candidate Rick Berg (R-eal Asshole) says if you're raped and get pregnant as a result, it's your responsibility to raise the child because abortion is never the answer   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 247
    More: Sick, North Dakota Republican Party, North Dakota Senate, Senate Candidate, GOP, North Dakota, rape victim, Equal Pay Act, human beings  
•       •       •

4092 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Oct 2012 at 11:00 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-10-12 07:33:04 PM
GOPs got rape on the mind. Again.

First they railed on gays, until many of them were proven to be gay.
Now they rail on about rape.......
 
2012-10-12 07:56:41 PM
I mean, you CAN'T give the kid to the rapist. That's just wrong!
 
2012-10-12 08:15:31 PM
And you'd rather there be two victims? Asshole.
 
2012-10-12 08:33:24 PM
What the fark is wrong with these people?
 
2012-10-12 08:46:57 PM
I personally don't agree with this, but I fail to see how this gets the sick tag? And many women have had babies that resulted from rape, some raising them, some putting them up for adoption.
 
2012-10-12 08:47:50 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: What the fark is wrong with these people?


Religion.
 
2012-10-12 08:55:00 PM
Keep talking.
 
2012-10-12 08:55:15 PM
What a dick. I will never fathom why a woman would vote GOP.
 
2012-10-12 08:55:37 PM

Lionel Mandrake: What a dick. I will never fathom why a woman would vote GOP.


Because their man tells them to.
 
2012-10-12 08:56:25 PM

Shostie: I mean, you CAN'T give the kid to the rapist. That's just wrong!


Rick Berg is a wealthy white man, he can raise the children.
 
2012-10-12 08:58:23 PM
What if Rick Berg was held down and anally raped by a 300 lb bear and he became pregnant with a jelly baby? Bet he'd change his mind then.
 
2012-10-12 09:13:16 PM

FirstNationalBastard: AdolfOliverPanties: What the fark is wrong with these people?

Religion.


Nah, that's half the problem. The other half is minding their own business.
 
2012-10-12 09:13:33 PM

Brick-House: I personally don't agree with this, but I fail to see how this gets the sick tag? And many women have had babies that resulted from rape, some raising them, some putting them up for adoption.


Is it safe to assume that they weren't forced to do so?
 
2012-10-12 09:15:44 PM
This is becoming a pattern now. They know it's pissing people off.
 
2012-10-12 09:33:44 PM

PapaChester: GOPs got rape on the mind. Again.

First they railed on gays, until many of them were proven to be gay.
Now they rail on about rape.......


Group W's where they put you if you may not be moral enough to join the army after committing your special crime, and there was all kinds of mean nasty ugly looking people on the bench there.

Mother rapers.

Father stabbers.

Father rapers!

Father rapers sitting right there on the bench next to me!
 
2012-10-12 09:35:20 PM

Brick-House: I personally don't agree with this, but I fail to see how this gets the sick tag? And many women have had babies that resulted from rape, some raising them, some putting them up for adoption.


Those are choices some women make. Others make different choices. It should be up to the individual.
 
2012-10-12 09:37:54 PM

Godscrack: This is becoming a pattern now. They know it's pissing people off.


But to what end?
 
2012-10-12 09:38:32 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: What the fark is wrong with these people?


Do you have a couple centuries? We might fit most of the big reasons in by then.
 
2012-10-12 09:40:41 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: What the fark is wrong with these people?


Christian family values.
 
2012-10-12 09:43:10 PM
"I'm pro-life, I'm concerned about the unborn and people who can't take care of themselves."

I'm calling bullshiat on that last part.
 
2012-10-12 09:43:19 PM

Nadie_AZ: Godscrack: This is becoming a pattern now. They know it's pissing people off.

But to what end?


There are some, like my stepmother, who will vote Republican purely because she believes that life begins at conception. Abortion is a horrible holocaust to those that believe in this.

Which was funny, because around 1900's, science was the one who featuss were actually alive, and the church didn't believe that the soul entered until the Quickening (when the baby begins moving) It was doctors that pressed for restricting abortions, with the church defending it. Some relgions did not believe you had a soul unless you came through the birth canal.
 
2012-10-12 09:45:52 PM
Said it before, will say it again. If you're "pro-life" and favor the rape/incest exception, why is it OK to murder a rape or incest baby but not OK to murder a baby conceived when the woman wanted to have sex?

And if it's not murder, clearly you believe a blastocyst does NOT have all the rights of a born child. Welcome to my side.

Oh, and if you're "pro-life" and you oppose charging the patient with murder, you're a hypocrite, pure and simple. All parties to a murder are legally culpable. So if a fertilized egg is intentionally kept from implanting, the woman who does it should be facing 20 to life. Why won't the "pro-life" crowd admit that?
 
2012-10-12 09:49:03 PM

fusillade762: "I'm pro-life, I'm concerned about the unborn and people who can't take care of themselves."

I'm calling bullshiat on that last part.


Oh, it's simple. They're talking about people on respirators, being hydrated and fed via a tube, kept in cardiac rhythm with a pacemaker, who show no sign of brain activity. Those people should be protected until natural death.

/"natural death"
//It's pretty much my favorite idiotic pro-lifer phrase
 
2012-10-12 09:58:24 PM

Darth_Lukecash: PapaChester: GOPs got rape on the mind. Again.

First they railed on gays, until many of them were proven to be gay.
Now they rail on about rape.......

Group W's where they put you if you may not be moral enough to join the army after committing your special crime, and there was all kinds of mean nasty ugly looking people on the bench there.

Mother rapers.

Father stabbers.

Father rapers!

Father rapers sitting right there on the bench next to me!


My Catholic church was run by Father Rapers
 
2012-10-12 09:59:24 PM
This is what I don't understand about some of these pro-life assholes. They believe that a clump of cells that hasn't formed anything resembling a human being, is actually a human being, and killing it (abortion) should be illegal. However, once said clump of cells turns into a human being and is then born, they could give less than a 1/10th of a fark about he/she after that.

Are they trying to say that human beings are like cars, in that once you come screaming out of your mom's snatch, you begin to depreciate in value....like a car does once you drive it off the lot? The pre-born are infinitely more valuable and worthy than the already born, whether they're toddlers, soldiers, or the elderly?

I know this may sound like a stupid question, but where's the farking logic in that?
 
2012-10-12 10:02:38 PM
It all comes down to sticking it to Liberals and unions. That's all that matters. This is nothing more than dog-whistle malarkey to rile up the base. Tribalism at its finest.
 
2012-10-12 10:03:59 PM
Question: how can you be "pro-life" while cutting the safety net and being pro-war? Both of those are against life.
 
2012-10-12 10:06:23 PM

GAT_00: Question: how can you be "pro-life" while cutting the safety net and being pro-war? Both of those are against life.


George Carlin had it right. "They're not pro-life, they're anti-woman"

/also, "Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to fark in the first place?"
 
2012-10-12 10:07:36 PM

RedPhoenix122: GAT_00: Question: how can you be "pro-life" while cutting the safety net and being pro-war? Both of those are against life.

George Carlin had it right. "They're not pro-life, they're anti-woman"

/also, "Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to fark in the first place?"


Like my family?
 
2012-10-12 10:09:00 PM
Rapepublicans now this is getting old. ARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGG!!!

(rant) Listen up you primitive screw-heads, abortion isn't something that slutty evil women thought up to piss of your god. It was a medical farking procedure that doctors usually recommend for a host of reasons.

Not to mention, this is an unplanned pregnancy. Which means she didn't intend to get pregnant for a number of reasons, one lack of resources amassed. Are you going to help her get assistance, pay for her medical costs or daycare so she can support herself or her child? No, I didn't think so. She's just going to be a lazy welfare mom in your eyes. You think giving birth is cheap?

It seems that the problem is even deeper than that. Children are no big deal for you, because your view is that some woman takes care of them and it's not your problem.

Just like rape, no matter what happens to her, you don't care, it's her problem to fix. God forbid if she fixes the problem in a way you don't like.

Oh and since math and science don't seem to be strong points of your kind. If you take 4 billion dollars (like say oil subsidies each year) and divide it by 16k (the average daycare worker salary), you would pay for roughly 250,000 daycare workers. Given the laws for young children, that would be 1 million babies that could be watched each year. (/rant)
 
2012-10-12 10:18:52 PM
Lobbing a few bombs that kill a few hundred million children? that about right. But kill a zygote? That's murder!
 
2012-10-12 10:32:03 PM
What is this Republican fascination about rape?
 
2012-10-12 10:41:14 PM
ok, well here's the thing guys...if you want to force a woman to carry her rape baby to term then you should pony up the cash to pay for ALL her medical bills for the duration of the pregnancy. also, you should help her with child assistance until the child is at least 10 years old OR you pay to help her find someone who will adopt the child.

of course, abortion would be the cheaper option....just sayin is all.
 
2012-10-12 10:44:26 PM

Weaver95: ok, well here's the thing guys...if you want to force a woman to carry her rape baby to term then you should pony up the cash to pay for ALL her medical bills for the duration of the pregnancy. also, you should help her with child assistance until the child is at least 10 years old OR you pay to help her find someone who will adopt the child.

of course, abortion would be the cheaper option....just sayin is all.


I pretty much said that in a more inflammatory way.
 
2012-10-12 11:04:56 PM
Just stamp a scarlet R on their foreheads and get it over with. This country was founded so that religious nutjobs could force their will upon women
 
2012-10-12 11:05:07 PM
Have these guys not figured out that every time they open their mouths about rape they lose voters? God is not going to vote them into office all by himself.
 
2012-10-12 11:06:28 PM
I remind everyone that you can still kill the child by stoning if you are unhappy. I forget which prolife republican said it but apparently according to the Bible if your child causes you distress you take them to the gates of the city and petition the elders to allow you to kill your offspring. But under no circumstance can abortion be allowed. Stoning children is fine but abortion goes too far.
 
2012-10-12 11:06:40 PM
Say hello to today's GOP, the American Taliban TM
 
2012-10-12 11:07:45 PM

Bucky Katt: What is this Republican fascination about rape?


Have you seen our Republican congresscritters? Do you think most of them have ever had actual consensual sex with a woman?
 
2012-10-12 11:07:57 PM
Didn't Paul Ryan say that rape would be one of the 'okay' abortion categories last night? How is this going to work in that framework?
 
2012-10-12 11:08:10 PM

Gyrfalcon: Have these guys not figured out that every time they open their mouths about rape they lose voters? God is not going to vote them into office all by himself.


It's North Dakota. He has an R next to his name. He could be named Hitler, he'll still win
 
2012-10-12 11:08:15 PM
Christian values...so good for America that they should be forced on everyone!
 
2012-10-12 11:09:56 PM
The sad part is some women are actually eating up this shiat with a spoon and will vote for them no matter what.
 
2012-10-12 11:11:28 PM

Zeppelininthesky: The sad part is some women are actually eating up this shiat with a spoon and will vote for them no matter what.


That's because the women are under the impression that every abortion is wrong except for theirs
 
2012-10-12 11:13:06 PM
At least he's honest.
 
2012-10-12 11:14:07 PM

Lost Thought 00: Gyrfalcon: Have these guys not figured out that every time they open their mouths about rape they lose voters? God is not going to vote them into office all by himself.

It's North Dakota. He has an R next to his name. He could be named Hitler, he'll still win


Maybe so, but he's not doing his party overall any good.
 
2012-10-12 11:17:11 PM
These people have been campaigning to make abortion illegal for several decades now. When asked what should happen to women who have abortions, a crime equal to murder in the eyes of pro-lifers, all these guys have to say is:

"I'll leave that up to others to come up with that."

and

"Those are things that need to be worked out through the legislative process."

Spineless sacks of crap.
 
2012-10-12 11:17:31 PM

bulldg4life: Zeppelininthesky: The sad part is some women are actually eating up this shiat with a spoon and will vote for them no matter what.

That's because the women are under the impression that every abortion is wrong except for theirs


Yep. Isn't that right, Mrs. Santorum?
 
2012-10-12 11:19:42 PM

Lionel Mandrake: What a dick. I will never fathom why a woman would vote GOP.


Some women honestly believe it's the right thing to do. I know from family experience. That's why there will never be a "compromise", since some people honestly believe ending a pregnancy is murder, and there is nothing worse than innocent child murder (those brown foreign people deserve what's coming to them of course).

So if your entire mindset is that, then banning abortion is not about womens rights at all, its about the child being murdered. And thus you can be a woman and prolife.

Not saying its correct, but I feel like both sides could at least understand each other better once they realize the entire abortion debate comes down to if you think an embryo is a person or not a person. Then all the arguments from both sides make sense.
 
2012-10-12 11:20:50 PM

Lost Thought 00: Gyrfalcon: Have these guys not figured out that every time they open their mouths about rape they lose voters? God is not going to vote them into office all by himself.

It's North Dakota. He has an R next to his name. He could be named Hitler, he'll still win


Wasn't always that way :(. Before the president was abundant in melanin, we had 2 fine democratic senators and a democratic representative. In 2008 I was an appliance repairman who had quite a few rural routes that would take me across the central portion of this state every week. You wouldn't believe how many racist jokes and how many times I heard "I'm not voting for a ni**er".

ND used to look to Minnesota for culture, now it looks at the Nashville and Dallas. Sad.
 
182
2012-10-12 11:21:47 PM

Shostie: I mean, you CAN'T give the kid to the rapist. That's just wrong!


end of goddamn thread!
 
182
2012-10-12 11:22:59 PM

bulldg4life: Zeppelininthesky: The sad part is some women are actually eating up this shiat with a spoon and will vote for them no matter what.

That's because the women are under the impression that every abortion is wrong except for theirs


yeah, like keep your socialist hands off mah medicare!
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2012-10-12 11:24:32 PM

GOP

Get the government off the backs of big business

Get the government into the lives of all women.
 
2012-10-12 11:24:36 PM

Relatively Obscure: Brick-House: I personally don't agree with this, but I fail to see how this gets the sick tag? And many women have had babies that resulted from rape, some raising them, some putting them up for adoption.

Is it safe to assume that they weren't forced to do so?


img230.imageshack.us

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD QUIT QUOTING TROLLS. SOME OF US HAVE THEM ON IGNORE, AND YOU COMPLETELY DEFEAT THE PURPOSE. ALL THEY WANT IS ATTENTION, NOT A THOUGHTFUL REBUTTAL. "OH WOW! I NEVER THOUGHT OF IT QUITE LIKE THAT BEFORE! GOOD POINT! THANKS FOR HELPING ME UNDERSTAND YOUR SIDE OF IT A LITTLE BETTER!" 

/CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL
 
2012-10-12 11:26:08 PM
It's a child, not a choice.
 
2012-10-12 11:26:20 PM

Shostie: I mean, you CAN'T give the kid to the rapist. That's just wrong!


What if THIS is exactly what we do? Give the child to the rapist. You raped this woman. You deal with the consequence.

Same goes for dead beat dads.

We'd have to sacrifice probably one generation before rapists used condoms and men really farking thought about where they put their dicks.
 
2012-10-12 11:26:59 PM

Brick-House: I personally don't agree with this, but I fail to see how this gets the sick tag? And many women have had babies that resulted from rape, some raising them, some putting them up for adoption.


And none of the rapists.
 
2012-10-12 11:28:04 PM

Mixolydian Master: Relatively Obscure: Brick-House: I personally don't agree with this, but I fail to see how this gets the sick tag? And many women have had babies that resulted from rape, some raising them, some putting them up for adoption.

Is it safe to assume that they weren't forced to do so?

[img230.imageshack.us image 554x396]

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD QUIT QUOTING TROLLS. SOME OF US HAVE THEM ON IGNORE, AND YOU COMPLETELY DEFEAT THE PURPOSE. ALL THEY WANT IS ATTENTION, NOT A THOUGHTFUL REBUTTAL. "OH WOW! I NEVER THOUGHT OF IT QUITE LIKE THAT BEFORE! GOOD POINT! THANKS FOR HELPING ME UNDERSTAND YOUR SIDE OF IT A LITTLE BETTER!" 

/CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL


You know you can also ignore any posts that quote someone on your ignore list, last I checked, right?
 
2012-10-12 11:28:05 PM

Lost Thought 00: Gyrfalcon: Have these guys not figured out that every time they open their mouths about rape they lose voters? God is not going to vote them into office all by himself.

It's North Dakota. He has an R next to his name. He could be named Hitler, he'll still win


I don't know about that, Heitkamp actually has a chance. In unrelated news (csb time), in a few weeks I get to play at a GOTV rally that she and Ryan Taylor (governatorial candidate) will be at.

Which reminds me, (more csb) I played the state Republican convention a few years ago - that was a, well, interesting gig. We were a funk and soul band and when we came on stage and started to play it was hard stares and farkin' crickets, man. And we were killing it - Earth Wind and Fire, Stevie Wonder, L.T.D., all of it. About 30 minutes of no response I told the horn players to take a break. We started playing country music and no shiat, the audience all started two-stepping. If this sounds like the Bob's Country Bunker scene from Blues Brothers, that would be the best way to describe it - the only thing missing was goddamned chicken wire. Talk about a mis-hire, even though I told them exactly what we were... Rates as one of my top weirdest farking gigs ever.

Afterward I got a call from one of the candidates (who was a musician) to go on the road with him. I told him I was flattered and I'd have to think about it. The current Tea Party moniker hadn't yet been coined, but after checking his website, it was apparent this guy was that to the nines. Lots of songs about 'Merica. Blah. I politely declined. These days it wouldn't be so polite.
 
2012-10-12 11:28:11 PM
It's a choice not a child.
 
2012-10-12 11:28:48 PM
Yeah, the Dakotas seemed nice and Scandinavian in their political outlook but I think being nearly 100% white really twisted them up. Oh, except for the "mudrace timber n-ggers."
 
2012-10-12 11:28:54 PM
I miss the good old days when the GOP was all about consensual man-on-man or openly fapping to Sarah Palin instead of the Rapeublicanism of the last year.

These guys' burning shame-obsession with sex combined with their coercive and repressive Puritanism is just bizarre and psychologically warped. Nobody talks about sex in politics as much as these people, and when they do, they are constantly talking about forcibly penetrating and controlling women's bodies.

This is farked up.
 
2012-10-12 11:29:33 PM
That was the most terrifying and overlooked thing of the Vice Presidential debates. The next President will determine between 2-3 Supreme Court justices. This isn't just a lower taxes versus higher taxes sort of deal. The next President will be determining the thrust of the country for the next thirty years or so. If you want Scalia and his ilk determining what is constitutional, by all means vote for Romney, but if that terrifies you - as it does me - vote for Obama. Citizens United was just the beginning, unless this court is stopped.
 
2012-10-12 11:30:47 PM
Remember, the GOP is protecting the rights of raped women to bear their children. After all, rape is the only way that conservative reproduce.
 
2012-10-12 11:31:13 PM

bobbette: I miss the good old days when the GOP was all about consensual man-on-man or openly fapping to Sarah Palin instead of the Rapeublicanism of the last year.

These guys' burning shame-obsession with sex combined with their coercive and repressive Puritanism is just bizarre and psychologically warped. Nobody talks about sex in politics as much as these people, and when they do, they are constantly talking about forcibly penetrating and controlling women's bodies.

This is farked up.


Don't forget their weird obsession with the intimate details of gay anal sex. My gay college roomate did not talk about dicks in butts as much as the GOP
 
2012-10-12 11:32:32 PM
does that chicken look tired to you?
that chicken looks tired.
they should stop farking it like its a winning position. it hurts the chicken and it hurts us all when such extreme examples are mainstream discourse in this country.
 
2012-10-12 11:34:14 PM
I wish people would stop saying pro-life most of these people believe in the death penalty(also, if you say why not kill it in the womb and skip the middle man, they do not see the humour in that statement) they are anti-abortionist and pro-life is a spin doctor term

/anyone who doesn't believe in abortion needs to be adopting children from the foster system, put your money where your mouth is
 
2012-10-12 11:35:33 PM

Brick-House: And many women have had babies that resulted from rape, some raising them, some putting them up for adoption.


And you're OK that the government can force them to do this?

So, if I'm obsessed with some starlet (Taylor Swift?) and I rape and knock her up, she will be forced, by law, to carry it to term?

Can I sue for visitation?
 
2012-10-12 11:38:38 PM
I've been doing a great deal of reading lately, mostly Wikipedia and SPLC, about the weird convoluted connections between the current GOP "Christians" and the Dominionists, including Rushdoony's massive influence on people like Falwell and Robertson and then down through the hierarchy. It's a very scary and purist world that they want to impose, but it actually makes no logical sense. Logically, you would want to distribute birth control in order to prevent abortions, but they actually even hate birth control more than they do abortions. Bottom line is that you can take your most exaggerated extremist stereotype of what you fear the most about the plans of the GOP's religious beliefs, and the reality is even worse than the worst libby lib's pipe dreams. They are vicious and relentless, and they will stop at nothing.
 
2012-10-12 11:38:45 PM
If you're "pro-life" and ok with exceptions then you are a hypocrite and don't deserve to be trusted.
 
2012-10-12 11:40:11 PM
GOPwinkle: "Hey media, watch me garner votes by pulling misogynistic bullshiat out of my ass!"
MSM: "Again? But that trick never works!"
GOPwinkle: "This time for sure!"
 
2012-10-12 11:43:07 PM
As a Canadian, I have to say: I really don't get your republican party. We have many Christians (and other religions, ect)...they don't act like this.
 
2012-10-12 11:44:00 PM

Without Fail: Brick-House: And many women have had babies that resulted from rape, some raising them, some putting them up for adoption.

And you're OK that the government can force them to do this?

So, if I'm obsessed with some starlet (Taylor Swift?) and I rape and knock her up, she will be forced, by law, to carry it to term?

Can I sue for visitation?


Taylor, I'm really happy for you, and Imma let you finish...
 
2012-10-12 11:44:16 PM

Without Fail: Can I sue for visitation?


In many states, you actually can.

Britney Spear's Speculum: If you're "pro-life" and ok with exceptions then you are a hypocrite and don't deserve to be trusted.


I've never met a pro-life person yet outside of Catholic clergy who was anything remotely close to actually being pro-life. The second someone who claims to be pro-life starts going off about needing going out and using the military to kick someone's ass or cutting benefits to the needy they invalidate any claim they have to being pro-life.
 
2012-10-12 11:45:44 PM
What is it about Todd Akin that just opened the floodgates of idiocy about rape?
 
2012-10-12 11:46:09 PM

schubie: Yeah, the Dakotas seemed nice and Scandinavian in their political outlook but I think being nearly 100% white really twisted them up. Oh, except for the "mudrace timber n-ggers."


It has gotten more polarized in the last 10 years or so. I honestly think it's partially because right-wing Internet punditry has made the rounds in that time and found a lot of suckers.

Also Evangelical Christianity has gotten a LOT stronger up here. It used to be Lutheran churches (which are relatively liberal) totally dominated, but these days I'm seeing a lot of stricter sects and even a few mini-megachurches (as mega as you can get up here).

But try to engage anybody over 30 in political discussion and you'll get a lot of push back: "Whoa whoa whoa, take it easy! So I was f-ing my wife in her a--, right?" That kind of thing.

Truth is people up here do NOT want to engage. I started to get into it with a coworker today after he sat there and lied to my face about how Obama's taxes are killing business in the country. Right? I was emboldened by Mean Joe last night and told him to prove it - show me that's true and that it has a negative effect. And I was pissed, no backing down - you're lying. He stammered off and said he would. I haven't seen shiat. But everybody else was" get that shiat out of here" then went back to Facebooking. Goddamned jante law.
 
2012-10-12 11:50:15 PM
So the term "Rape-ublicans" is still legitimate? I can't keep track anymore.
 
2012-10-12 11:51:40 PM

FirstNationalBastard: AdolfOliverPanties: What the fark is wrong with these people?

Religion.


As bad as religion often is, in this case, it's pretty clear he is probably the kind of person who would be best utilized by being strangled to death with his own entrails for the mass entertainment of others all on his own.
 
2012-10-12 11:53:21 PM
So despite the fact that it's a costly endeavor to raise a child, some Republicans are against killing it to save state money which will be spent on education, medical treatment, food stamps, and a variety of other costs? ZOMG they must be heartless bastards who hate people and want them to die!!! oh, wait, now the problem is that they want them to live. got it.

/votes Libertarian. We're the truly heartless bastards who don't care about anyone but ourselves.
 
2012-10-12 11:53:25 PM

Without Fail: Brick-House: And many women have had babies that resulted from rape, some raising them, some putting them up for adoption.

And you're OK that the government can force them to do this?

So, if I'm obsessed with some starlet (Taylor Swift?) and I rape and knock her up, she will be forced, by law, to carry it to term?

Can I sue for visitation?


Of course you can.
 
2012-10-12 11:54:35 PM

Huggermugger: I've been doing a great deal of reading lately, mostly Wikipedia and SPLC, about the weird convoluted connections between the current GOP "Christians" and the Dominionists, including Rushdoony's massive influence on people like Falwell and Robertson and then down through the hierarchy. It's a very scary and purist world that they want to impose, but it actually makes no logical sense. Logically, you would want to distribute birth control in order to prevent abortions, but they actually even hate birth control more than they do abortions. Bottom line is that you can take your most exaggerated extremist stereotype of what you fear the most about the plans of the GOP's religious beliefs, and the reality is even worse than the worst libby lib's pipe dreams. They are vicious and relentless, and they will stop at nothing.


I keep hammering my pro-life friends with the contradictions in their positions. specifically, the catholics. you *cannot* pick and choose with catholic doctrine - you either believe in ALL of it, or you aren't in the silly hat club anymore. which means that if you want to be a pro-life catholic you also have to sign up for the catholic church's social justice beliefs as well. so no more Ayn Rand worship: the church actually means it when they say that Catholics have a duty to help the sick and poor. problem is...I know these people. I know for a fact that they LOVE Ayn Rand. they LOVE to f*ck over poor people and look out for themselves. they do NOT like it when I point out that they're violating their own religious beliefs and that, theologically speaking, they're technically heretics...or at least no longer members in good standing with the Church.
 
2012-10-12 11:55:17 PM

BoxOfBees:
/votes Libertarian. We're the truly heartless bastards who don't care about anyone but ourselves.


actually, that's not entirely true. the libertarians are, right now anyways, busy shooting themselves in both feet.
 
2012-10-12 11:58:50 PM

Shostie: I mean, you CAN'T give the kid to the rapist. That's just wrong!


In 31 states, a convicted rapist can still sue for custody, giving them another way to inflict more damage and pain on their victim.
 
2012-10-12 11:59:45 PM

WhyteRaven74: I've never met a pro-life person yet outside of Catholic clergy who was anything remotely close to actually being pro-life. The second someone who claims to be pro-life starts going off about needing going out and using the military to kick someone's ass or cutting benefits to the needy they invalidate any claim they have to being pro-life.


That too, however, in the arena of the "unborn" that jesus freaks seem to feel is so sacred that it's beyond human understanding, making exceptions for rape or life of mother is hypocritical. If they want to falsely believe a fetus is >>>>> a living breathing human, then it is up to the pro-choice people to call them on it and hold them to it.
 
2012-10-13 12:01:43 AM

WizardofToast: What is it about Todd Akin that just opened the floodgates of idiocy about rape?


The "spastic tubes shutting down" thing has been a back-of-the-church "fact" for years now. Much like the speaking in tongues routine, they usually know better than to do it in public, at a job interview, or while being pulled over for a DWI checkpoint. Usually. And now that the general public has been tipped off to this gob-smacking sh*t-for-brains nonsense, it catches the media's eye, because they know it's not simply some old politician showing symptoms of a minor stroke, it's what they tell each other when they do really awful things.
 
2012-10-13 12:02:36 AM

Huggermugger: the current GOP "Christians" and the Dominionists,


This wiki article is a good place to start, and there's a lot more about them on the net
 
2012-10-13 12:03:47 AM

RobertBruce: And you'd rather there be two victims? Asshole.


cause we all know a zygote is the same exact thing as a fully developed human being after it is born.

praise jesus.
 
2012-10-13 12:04:13 AM

Brick-House: I personally don't agree with this, but I fail to see how this gets the sick tag? And many women have had babies that resulted from rape, some raising them, some putting them up for adoption.


Well, to insist that a woman allow the rapist's child to grow inside her for 9 months then go through delivery is a bit farking twisted. She had a bad enough time being raped, now she has to endure pregnancy for almost a year, and go through the excruciating pain of delivery. I can pretty much guarantee that if you raped this guy's wife, and got her pregnant, he'd have a different point of view... that is, if he actually loves her.
 
2012-10-13 12:04:20 AM

Britney Spear's Speculum: jesus freaks


The real fun is bringing up to them what Jewish law said about abortion in Jesus' time, it was allowed for certain cases, and that Jesus apparently never had a problem with that law, seeing as there's no record, even in non-canonical works of him voicing any issue with the law.
 
2012-10-13 12:04:54 AM

GAT_00: Question: how can you be "pro-life" while cutting the safety net and being pro-war? Both of those are against life.


It's perfect nutjob logic. Those unaborted rape babies, growing up without any kind of security granted, are unlikely to ever have a chance to contest that farkwits' positions. Basically they're future war fodder. Some retire retroactively, some are aborted retroactively. It's easy for those hypocrites. You can have both and still call it God's will.
 
2012-10-13 12:09:00 AM
Rapeney / Rapeyn 2012
 
2012-10-13 12:11:43 AM

Ryker's Peninsula: Rapeney / Rapeyn 2012


Ahh, the Rapeblican ticket
 
2012-10-13 12:14:31 AM

Mixolydian Master: Relatively Obscure: Brick-House: I personally don't agree with this, but I fail to see how this gets the sick tag? And many women have had babies that resulted from rape, some raising them, some putting them up for adoption.

Is it safe to assume that they weren't forced to do so?

[img230.imageshack.us image 554x396]

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD QUIT QUOTING TROLLS. SOME OF US HAVE THEM ON IGNORE, AND YOU COMPLETELY DEFEAT THE PURPOSE. ALL THEY WANT IS ATTENTION, NOT A THOUGHTFUL REBUTTAL. "OH WOW! I NEVER THOUGHT OF IT QUITE LIKE THAT BEFORE! GOOD POINT! THANKS FOR HELPING ME UNDERSTAND YOUR SIDE OF IT A LITTLE BETTER!" 

/CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL



Settle down, Beavis.

I don't know who all of the people you decided were trolls are. I don't even keep serious track of the people I've thought are trolls. So, there's a good chance I might inadvertently do that to you again. It may be safer to ignore me. Or, you could check " Ignore posts from unignored users that mention users on your ignore list (Exact match of bolded names)"
 
2012-10-13 12:15:55 AM
The GOP is pro-life because they figure if a woman spends nine months lugging around an unwanted parasite that someone else imposed upon them, they'll be more likely to vote Republican.

They're pro-war because the only real use for lower-class kids is cannon fodder.
 
2012-10-13 12:16:22 AM

dahmers love zombie: So if a fertilized egg is intentionally kept from implanting, the woman who does it should be facing 20 to life. Why won't the "pro-life" crowd admit that?


That's pretty much what "personhood laws" are about.
 
2012-10-13 12:19:32 AM
It's at least a consistent position, but man, I just don't get it.

Should all miscarriages be investigated as homicides? Should all women be requird to submit a recent pregnancy test before being served alcohol or allowed to buy tobacco? I mean, if abortion becomes illegal and abortion providers are given criminal sentences, is a woman who intentionally takes enough medication/alochol/whatever to force her body to miscarry, is she a murderer? What if she just goes out for a night of drinking without knowing she's pregnant?

The logical follow through on life begins at conception implies that all women should be confied to bed after their first period and not allowed to interact with the outside world because it may harm their unborn child. It's insane.

I honestly feel the status-quo is about right. Surely, at some point, a fetus transitions into a human. But that point is at like 22-24 weeks (though I'm not a biologist/medical ethics person/whatever and can be talked into varying degrees of this).

But if life begins at 0.01 seconds... man. Margaret Atwood was right.
 
2012-10-13 12:19:32 AM

Charlie Freak: Lost Thought 00: Gyrfalcon: Have these guys not figured out that every time they open their mouths about rape they lose voters? God is not going to vote them into office all by himself.

It's North Dakota. He has an R next to his name. He could be named Hitler, he'll still win

I don't know about that, Heitkamp actually has a chance. In unrelated news (csb time), in a few weeks I get to play at a GOTV rally that she and Ryan Taylor (governatorial candidate) will be at.

Which reminds me, (more csb) I played the state Republican convention a few years ago - that was a, well, interesting gig. We were a funk and soul band and when we came on stage and started to play it was hard stares and farkin' crickets, man. And we were killing it - Earth Wind and Fire, Stevie Wonder, L.T.D., all of it. About 30 minutes of no response I told the horn players to take a break. We started playing country music and no shiat, the audience all started two-stepping. If this sounds like the Bob's Country Bunker scene from Blues Brothers, that would be the best way to describe it - the only thing missing was goddamned chicken wire. Talk about a mis-hire, even though I told them exactly what we were... Rates as one of my top weirdest farking gigs ever.

Afterward I got a call from one of the candidates (who was a musician) to go on the road with him. I told him I was flattered and I'd have to think about it. The current Tea Party moniker hadn't yet been coined, but after checking his website, it was apparent this guy was that to the nines. Lots of songs about 'Merica. Blah. I politely declined. These days it wouldn't be so polite.


That is a CSB. Who the fark doesn't love Earth, Wind, & Fire, anyway?
 
2012-10-13 12:21:14 AM

mavrickatubc: As a Canadian, I have to say: I really don't get your republican party. We have many Christians (and other religions, ect)...they don't act like this.


As an American, I have to say we have many loud "Christians", actual Christians are a smaller minority, IMHO. Hope that clears things up...
 
2012-10-13 12:24:35 AM
Women, I'm sorry. I'd just like to inform you that if I'm on your jury when you end these people... You'll go free. It's all good. Do what you need to do. I completely understand.
 
2012-10-13 12:28:19 AM
i14.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-13 12:28:22 AM

Huggermugger: I've been doing a great deal of reading lately, mostly Wikipedia and SPLC, about the weird convoluted connections between the current GOP "Christians" and the Dominionists, including Rushdoony's massive influence on people like Falwell and Robertson and then down through the hierarchy. It's a very scary and purist world that they want to impose, but it actually makes no logical sense. Logically, you would want to distribute birth control in order to prevent abortions, but they actually even hate birth control more than they do abortions. Bottom line is that you can take your most exaggerated extremist stereotype of what you fear the most about the plans of the GOP's religious beliefs, and the reality is even worse than the worst libby lib's pipe dreams. They are vicious and relentless, and they will stop at nothing.


i think you're right. it reminds me of that quote from Johnson about how he found it was impossible to deal with Christians because they will simply not budge.

i think it's madness that people who don't have vaginas should even have a say in the matter of abortion. and we in america should be teaching children about sex and birth control starting in the 6th grade on up, and making birth control available to them. it's way over due.
 
2012-10-13 12:35:05 AM
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-10-13 12:36:31 AM

bulldg4life: Zeppelininthesky: The sad part is some women are actually eating up this shiat with a spoon and will vote for them no matter what.

That's because the women are under the impression that every abortion is wrong except for theirs


I have one acquaintance who rails against all abortions, even hers. Conveniently, she's not raising that bastard.

Cake / Eat It Too 2012
 
2012-10-13 12:36:38 AM
Remember when the GOP just gave lip service on abortion, to placate the rubes? And sponsored little to no bills?

I was a young man in the 90s. In those days, we all laughed at the GOP for pushing the abortion issue from a podium and then never bringing any legislation...until voting season. The issue wasn't touched once in office.
 
2012-10-13 12:42:44 AM
If a rapist gets you preggers, you better have that baby. But if a republican gets you pregnant, you get a freaking abortion, slut!
 
2012-10-13 12:43:08 AM
"I would make an exception for the life of the mother."

How nice! fark you!

Senate candidate. Yeah. How in the holy fark?! Supported by a constituency of single digit IQ human refuse. DIAF you backwards shiatwads!
 
2012-10-13 12:43:15 AM

dickfreckle: The issue wasn't touched once in office.


It never is. It's just pandering to people too stupid to realize the fact.
 
2012-10-13 12:43:43 AM
www.theage.com.au
 
2012-10-13 12:43:46 AM
If it is a human life then murdering it to make the rape victim feel better is wrong.

Internal consistency is good.
 
2012-10-13 12:46:43 AM
File a class action lawsuit for child support against him?
 
2012-10-13 12:47:34 AM

AdolfOliverPanties: What the fark is wrong with these people?


The Old Testament is what's wrong with these people. Way too much Old Testament.
 
2012-10-13 12:47:46 AM
How is this even an issue? No matter how strongly you feel about abortion, the status quo isn't going to change without a civil war.
 
2012-10-13 12:49:38 AM
FTFA:

SHAW: Why would you force a woman who has been raped to have that baby?
BERG: You know, like I said Jim, my position is pro-life, and I care about the unborn and I feel that's really where we should be in our policy.

SHAW: What would the appropriate sentence be if abortion was illegal and a woman did have an abortion?

BERG: I'll leave that up to others to come up with that.

SHAW: Should we put her in jail? Should we fine her? Do you have any thoughts on that at all?

BERG: Those are things that need to be worked out through the legislative process
.


What a f*cking dillweed. He's running for office to be part of the very legislative process he won't talk about.

Cowardly jackass won't say what he's going to do once he reaches the lofty heights of the NOrth Dakota Sate Senate. If he's going to be hardcore anti-abortion like this, why won't he just come out and say what exactly he's going to do when this issue is "worked out through the legislative process."

Christ what a pussy/
 
2012-10-13 12:51:44 AM
Might as well marry the rapist, too, so I'll have a man to help me raise the kid. I plan on being a house-mom. That'll show him.

I expect the Republicans to pass laws to force marriage on every man who impregnates a woman as soon as they all get into office. It's for the Family.

www.templeton-cambridge.org
 
2012-10-13 12:53:50 AM

Coco LaFemme: This is what I don't understand about some of these pro-life assholes. They believe that a clump of cells that hasn't formed anything resembling a human being, is actually a human being, and killing it (abortion) should be illegal. However, once said clump of cells turns into a human being and is then born, they could give less than a 1/10th of a fark about he/she after that.

Are they trying to say that human beings are like cars, in that once you come screaming out of your mom's snatch, you begin to depreciate in value....like a car does once you drive it off the lot? The pre-born are infinitely more valuable and worthy than the already born, whether they're toddlers, soldiers, or the elderly?

I know this may sound like a stupid question, but where's the farking logic in that?


i have a feeling that it has something to do with the concept of Original Sin..and somehow you get the Original Sin on you when you pass through your mother's twat.

Which means that C-Section babbys are unstained and without sin.
 
2012-10-13 12:54:25 AM

Darth_Lukecash: Nadie_AZ: Godscrack: This is becoming a pattern now. They know it's pissing people off.

But to what end?

There are some, like my stepmother, who will vote Republican purely because she believes that life begins at conception. Abortion is a horrible holocaust to those that believe in this.

Which was funny, because around 1900's, science was the one who featuss were actually alive, and the church didn't believe that the soul entered until the Quickening (when the baby begins moving) It was doctors that pressed for restricting abortions, with the church defending it. Some relgions did not believe you had a soul unless you came through the birth canal.


Don't forget that holy mother church (Roman Catholic) and others declared in-vitro babies soulless abominations. Also it was church doctrine for a time you couldn't murder a fetus if the possibility of twinning was not over because (in layman's terms) you can't split a soul like a ham sandwich. (Until that point passed, the fetus could not be "en-souled")
 
2012-10-13 12:55:31 AM

bobbette: I miss the good old days when the GOP was all about consensual man-on-man or openly fapping to Sarah Palin instead of the Rapeublicanism of the last year.

These guys' burning shame-obsession with sex combined with their coercive and repressive Puritanism is just bizarre and psychologically warped. Nobody talks about sex in politics as much as these people, and when they do, they are constantly talking about forcibly penetrating and controlling women's bodies.

This is farked up.


Where ya been bobette? Missed you lately.
 
2012-10-13 12:58:13 AM

KrispyKritter: it reminds me of that quote from Johnson about how he found it was impossible to deal with Christians because they will simply not budge.


a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net
 
2012-10-13 01:00:17 AM
So vote Rapeublican.
 
2012-10-13 01:03:53 AM
i.imgur.com

/'Shopped this as a stupid joke while stoned.
//Never thought I'd have so many opportunities to use the bloody thing.
 
2012-10-13 01:03:55 AM
"But when asked in an interview Wednesday whether a woman who sought an illegal abortion should be jailed or fined, Berg declined to get into specifics and said the punishment should be figured out through the "legislative process."

In other words, he wants to take away your rights and punish you for your moral transgressions but he's too chicken-shiat to tell you that to your face.
 
2012-10-13 01:04:18 AM

coco ebert: Charlie Freak: Lost Thought 00: Gyrfalcon: Have these guys not figured out that every time they open their mouths about rape they lose voters? God is not going to vote them into office all by himself.

It's North Dakota. He has an R next to his name. He could be named Hitler, he'll still win

I don't know about that, Heitkamp actually has a chance. In unrelated news (csb time), in a few weeks I get to play at a GOTV rally that she and Ryan Taylor (governatorial candidate) will be at.

Which reminds me, (more csb) I played the state Republican convention a few years ago - that was a, well, interesting gig. We were a funk and soul band and when we came on stage and started to play it was hard stares and farkin' crickets, man. And we were killing it - Earth Wind and Fire, Stevie Wonder, L.T.D., all of it. About 30 minutes of no response I told the horn players to take a break. We started playing country music and no shiat, the audience all started two-stepping. If this sounds like the Bob's Country Bunker scene from Blues Brothers, that would be the best way to describe it - the only thing missing was goddamned chicken wire. Talk about a mis-hire, even though I told them exactly what we were... Rates as one of my top weirdest farking gigs ever.

Afterward I got a call from one of the candidates (who was a musician) to go on the road with him. I told him I was flattered and I'd have to think about it. The current Tea Party moniker hadn't yet been coined, but after checking his website, it was apparent this guy was that to the nines. Lots of songs about 'Merica. Blah. I politely declined. These days it wouldn't be so polite.

That is a CSB. Who the fark doesn't love Earth, Wind, & Fire, anyway?


Right? And we opened with September, too. There is nothing - nothing on earth that depresses me more than when a band is up on stage killing it and the crowd couldn't give two shiats. Unfortunately that's more the rule in this state than the exception. It kind of forces you to play niche stuff otherwise you'd end up quitting for good. That, or be in a jam band and just... no.
 
2012-10-13 01:07:31 AM

Huggermugger: I've been doing a great deal of reading lately, mostly Wikipedia and SPLC, about the weird convoluted connections between the current GOP "Christians" and the Dominionists, including Rushdoony's massive influence on people like Falwell and Robertson and then down through the hierarchy. It's a very scary and purist world that they want to impose, but it actually makes no logical sense. Logically, you would want to distribute birth control in order to prevent abortions, but they actually even hate birth control more than they do abortions. Bottom line is that you can take your most exaggerated extremist stereotype of what you fear the most about the plans of the GOP's religious beliefs, and the reality is even worse than the worst libby lib's pipe dreams. They are vicious and relentless, and they will stop at nothing.


Dominionists SCARE THE shiat OUT OF ME. There's a big church of them down the road and I meet and know many of its congregants and the most shocking thing about them is how normal they are outwardly. Not at all like Carrie's mom or my weird cousin who goes to the creation museum and looks like an extra from Little House on the Prairie. These people are educated, successful, stylish don't even talk about religion much and want to stone you to death for any number of things that you probably do on a daily basis. They're sliming up our government right now and Obama kept a bunch of Bush appointees from this sect. But, yeah, lets shiat our pants over Sharia law.
 
2012-10-13 01:13:18 AM

Bonzo_1116:
Christ what a pussy/

And I've met several people like that.
They love to take a strong generallzed position, but press them for details (for the express purpose of tearing their position apart, true), and they say that the details will be up to someone else. Just so long as the someone else agrees with them in theory and comes up with an idea that suits them, of course.

Yeah, but I'm asking you...what's your ideal. If you were asked to draft the bill and everybody else was replaced with a mannequin with a rubber stamp that said "YES", what would you put in the bill?

"Oh, that'll be worked out in the process."

That's not an answer, that's palming off actual responsibility onto a fictional group "other".
 
2012-10-13 01:19:49 AM

Ishidan:

That's not an answer, that's palming off actual responsibility onto a fictional group "other".



The worst part to me is that this guy is actively campaigning to become one of the "others" that will be "working on it". And he still won't say. For some thoughtless asshole co-worker, okay, maybe they didnt' think it all the way through...but this douchenozzle is supposed to be thinking about it. That's what he's running for, right?

Ugh.
 
2012-10-13 01:21:33 AM
You christians are some farked up individuals.
 
2012-10-13 01:22:49 AM

LordJiro: You know you can also ignore any posts that quote someone on your ignore list, last I checked, right?


Quoted for truth
 
2012-10-13 01:27:57 AM
Someone needs to start compiling these. The Republican Misogyny Tour is getting rather lengthy.
 
2012-10-13 01:28:17 AM
As long as it is taking up space rent free in my uterus, it's my choice as to how long the lease lasts.
 
2012-10-13 01:32:05 AM

Darth_Lukecash: PapaChester: GOPs got rape on the mind. Again.

First they railed on gays, until many of them were proven to be gay.
Now they rail on about rape.......

Group W's where they put you if you may not be moral enough to join the army after committing your special crime, and there was all kinds of mean nasty ugly looking people on the bench there.

Mother rapers.

Father stabbers.

Father rapers!

Father rapers sitting right there on the bench next to me!


Did you know that Arlo is now proud to be a registered republican?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlo_Guthrie
Politics
A registered Republican, Guthrie endorsed Texas Congressman Ron Paul for the 2008 Republican Party nomination. He said, "I love this guy. Dr. Paul is the only candidate I know of who would have signed the Constitution of the United States had he been there. I'm with him, because he seems to be the only candidate who actually believes it has as much relevance today as it did a couple of hundred years ago. I look forward to the day when we can work out the differences we have with the same revolutionary vision and enthusiasm that is our American legacy."[10] He told The New York Times Magazine that he is a Republican because, "We had enough good Democrats. We needed a few more good Republicans. We needed a loyal opposition."[11]...You can get anything you want, even baked big bird, at Alice's Restaurant
 
2012-10-13 01:39:39 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: [i.imgur.com image 375x500]

/'Shopped this as a stupid joke while stoned.
//Never thought I'd have so many opportunities to use the bloody thing.


Kudos to you, Mr. Glowy Balls. For some reason it makes me think of Monkey Island.
 
2012-10-13 01:43:57 AM
No abortion, and looking to cut down on SNAP (Food Stamps) because we all know that the rape victim should probably marry the raper to give the child a stable family...

"◦Savings will be focused on closing loop holes and removing waste, fraud and abuse in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the food stamp program."

http://www.bergfornorthdakota.com/view/fact-check/dscc?ref_v=1

We don't need to abort the children, since we can just starve them after the fact.
 
2012-10-13 02:19:01 AM

FirstNationalBastard: Lionel Mandrake: What a dick. I will never fathom why a woman would vote GOP.

Because their man tells them to.


Now, now. You're forgetting that the woman can be stupid entirely on her own.

/Equality, people.
 
2012-10-13 02:25:41 AM

BuckTurgidson:


You said rape twice

/they must really like rape
 
2012-10-13 02:26:08 AM

error 303: It's at least a consistent position, but man, I just don't get it.

Should all miscarriages be investigated as homicides? Should all women be requird to submit a recent pregnancy test before being served alcohol or allowed to buy tobacco? I mean, if abortion becomes illegal and abortion providers are given criminal sentences, is a woman who intentionally takes enough medication/alochol/whatever to force her body to miscarry, is she a murderer? What if she just goes out for a night of drinking without knowing she's pregnant?

The logical follow through on life begins at conception implies that all women should be confied to bed after their first period and not allowed to interact with the outside world because it may harm their unborn child. It's insane.

I honestly feel the status-quo is about right. Surely, at some point, a fetus transitions into a human. But that point is at like 22-24 weeks (though I'm not a biologist/medical ethics person/whatever and can be talked into varying degrees of this).

But if life begins at 0.01 seconds... man. Margaret Atwood was right.


I seriously recall the Republicans drafting or enacting a law in one of their hillbilly hellholes which was aimed to prosecute women who have miscarriages for murder. On the basis that they're supposed to be "more careful."

As though every miscarriage means a woman killed a baby.
 
2012-10-13 02:32:32 AM

LavenderWolf: error 303: It's at least a consistent position, but man, I just don't get it.

Should all miscarriages be investigated as homicides? Should all women be requird to submit a recent pregnancy test before being served alcohol or allowed to buy tobacco? I mean, if abortion becomes illegal and abortion providers are given criminal sentences, is a woman who intentionally takes enough medication/alochol/whatever to force her body to miscarry, is she a murderer? What if she just goes out for a night of drinking without knowing she's pregnant?

The logical follow through on life begins at conception implies that all women should be confied to bed after their first period and not allowed to interact with the outside world because it may harm their unborn child. It's insane.

I honestly feel the status-quo is about right. Surely, at some point, a fetus transitions into a human. But that point is at like 22-24 weeks (though I'm not a biologist/medical ethics person/whatever and can be talked into varying degrees of this).

But if life begins at 0.01 seconds... man. Margaret Atwood was right.

I seriously recall the Republicans drafting or enacting a law in one of their hillbilly hellholes which was aimed to prosecute women who have miscarriages for murder. On the basis that they're supposed to be "more careful."

As though every miscarriage means a woman killed a baby.


When I had a miscarriage, and then had to get a D&C afterward, the medical record said "spontaneous abortion". Apparently that was a valid medical term, but I can just imagine it being used to prosecute a woman who's had a "legitimate" miscarriage.
 
2012-10-13 02:34:26 AM

dahmers love zombie: So if a fertilized egg is intentionally kept from implanting, the woman who does it should be facing 20 to life. Why won't the "pro-life" crowd admit that?


Some of them do, and have been trying to make IUDs and birth control pills illegal. Haven't you been paying attention?
 
2012-10-13 02:41:35 AM

LavenderWolf: I seriously recall the Republicans drafting or enacting a law in one of their hillbilly hellholes which was aimed to prosecute women who have miscarriages for murder. On the basis that they're supposed to be "more careful." As though every miscarriage means a woman killed a baby.


Those particular laws are just obscene. I've had three miscarriages, my girlfriend's had one and my best friend's had two (including one earlier this week). They were all wanted. Why the hell should we be considered criminals?

/I are serious post, this are serious thread.
//Back to your regularly-scheduled snark.
 
2012-10-13 02:50:41 AM

Brick-House: I personally don't agree with this, but I fail to see how this gets the sick tag? And many women have had babies that resulted from rape, some raising them, some putting them up for adoption.


you don't see how it's pretty farking sick to force women by threat of law (and presumably prison time) to bear their rapist's child?
 
2012-10-13 02:57:01 AM
I vaguely remember a time when I disagreed with the Republicans on most things, but they had a few good positions.

Something happened.

At this point I can't easily come up with a single issue that Republicans aren't completely ass backwards on.

If you still vote for today's GOP, you're either an idiot or an asshole.
 
2012-10-13 03:01:17 AM
Sigh, wrong again libs. Not only does this show that evolution is wrong, but that God intends on women raising rape babies.

If evolution is true and God didn't want to have rape babies, women would have evolved the maze-like vaginas that ducks have. Since womens vaginas have no mazes in them, evolution is false and abortion is a sin.
 
2012-10-13 03:01:21 AM

Emposter: Something happened.


That "Something" would be the Tea Party.
 
2012-10-13 03:08:57 AM

stoli n coke: Bucky Katt: What is this Republican fascination about rape?

Have you seen our Republican congresscritters? Do you think most of them have ever had actual consensual sex with a woman?


Sure. They're rich.
 
2012-10-13 03:15:46 AM

Makh: Rapepublicans now this is getting old. ARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGG!!!

(rant) Listen up you primitive screw-heads, abortion isn't something that slutty evil women thought up to piss of your god. It was a medical farking procedure that doctors usually recommend for a host of reasons.

Not to mention, this is an unplanned pregnancy. Which means she didn't intend to get pregnant for a number of reasons, one lack of resources amassed. Are you going to help her get assistance, pay for her medical costs or daycare so she can support herself or her child? No, I didn't think so. She's just going to be a lazy welfare mom in your eyes. You think giving birth is cheap?

It seems that the problem is even deeper than that. Children are no big deal for you, because your view is that some woman takes care of them and it's not your problem.

Just like rape, no matter what happens to her, you don't care, it's her problem to fix. God forbid if she fixes the problem in a way you don't like.

Oh and since math and science don't seem to be strong points of your kind. If you take 4 billion dollars (like say oil subsidies each year) and divide it by 16k (the average daycare worker salary), you would pay for roughly 250,000 daycare workers. Given the laws for young children, that would be 1 million babies that could be watched each year. (/rant)


Smarted! If you are not a female, you should have been.
 
2012-10-13 03:21:40 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: Emposter: Something happened.

That "Something" would be the Tea Party.


Nah, before that. It's hard to put a date on it, but I'd estimate that the change too place during the 1990s. Whatever it was, it led to the GOP falling under the control of the very, very far right, and it's gotten worse since then, leading up to stuff like the Tea Party.
 
2012-10-13 03:27:24 AM

Bucky Katt: What is this Republican fascination about rape?


Rape. And male gay sex in all forms... rapey gay black socialist, commie, Nazi, time travelling A-rab mooslibs who want to rape embryos until they are gay...chime in, fark psychologists (I KNOW some hoity toity elitist educated snobs are out there). What's your take on this obsesseion?
 
2012-10-13 03:28:29 AM

Emposter: Fluorescent Testicle: Emposter: Something happened.

That "Something" would be the Tea Party.

Nah, before that. It's hard to put a date on it, but I'd estimate that the change too place during the 1990s. Whatever it was, it led to the GOP falling under the control of the very, very far right, and it's gotten worse since then, leading up to stuff like the Tea Party.


The "Moral Majority" which led to the notorious "Contract with/on America" which then became the Teahadists. The one constant in republicanism the past few decades is their first instinct is to lie about who they are, lie about what they want, lie about what they'll do. You think it's a coincidence that Joe the Plumber is a guy named Sam who never intended to be a plumber or that Wilard pretends he's named Mitt?

/I understand not wanting to go by Wilard, which is why most people would go by Will; Mitt being a pretty shocking step down. From Wilard.
 
2012-10-13 03:35:11 AM
Why punish the child for the crimes of the father? Adoption is a much more humane option than abortion.

However, this case is so hysterical and so moot and completely detracts from reality. Less than 1% of abortions are due to rape & the vast majority of pro-life people are willing to compromise on this issue and allow abortion in the cases of rape, incest and the mother's health (which together account for 3% of abortions).
 
2012-10-13 03:36:39 AM
By the way, this incessant harping on rape is disgusting. I am way turned off by these fear mongering tactics.

I only hope the rest of the country isn't dumb enough to fall for this juvenile propaganda.
 
2012-10-13 03:38:20 AM

Nuff Said McFarky: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 781x960]


Yep. Creating human life is equated to death. Up is down, black is white and truth is slain in the streets.
 
2012-10-13 03:42:57 AM

coco ebert: That is a CSB. Who the fark doesn't love Earth, Wind, & Fire, anyway?


I am the only known white boy who can recite the lyrics to every song in the entire EWF catalog (special editions...maybe).

Go ahead. Test me.

/has rhythm, too, which surprised my entire family
//Someday, I will relate the story
 
2012-10-13 03:46:11 AM

RedPhoenix122: Nah, that's half the problem. The other half is minding their own business.


Which their religion, assuming we're talking about Christianity here, specifically forbids several times throughout the new testament (if you don't evangelize, persecute sinners, etc, the bible specifically disavows you and generally notes that you get to burn eternally).

Which kind of brings us back to religion being the problem.

//I mean, the people that just claim they're religious while violating most of the core demands of their religion are, in fact, typically massively better and more moral people for it, but let's at least try to be factual. If you look at the source book(s) for the religion, those folks are clearly good people in spite of their faith, or alternately because of their lack thereof.
 
2012-10-13 03:47:46 AM
There is a study that shows Atheists overwhelmingly support abortion. I think that is very telling as what drives pro lifers. In reality nothing much happens at conception that amounts to anything more than bio-chemistry. If you end it there, all you stop is a complex biological reaction. No murder about it.

The difference between killing an animal(hopefully as painlessly as possible) and killing a living human(which we suddenly call murder) comes down to the difference between an animal and a human. Its not about a "soul" that could never be quantified to exist. Its all about sentience. Well a half developed fetus does not have this. They have the potential to obtain it gradually, but nothing more.

Having an abortion to stop a pregnancy you do not want(even if for nothing more than inconvenience) is no more evil than having an animal killed because you prefer to eat meat. Vegans/vegetarians feel "meat is murder" every bit as much as you think "abortion is murder." They have every bit as much a point as you, but are not (currently) trying to legislate their beliefs upon YOU. They are trying to convince you to make the individual decision not to eat meat instead.

Pro lifers are mostly people who call themselves Christian but never actually read through The Bible on their own(Let alone a scientific book/article). Very few pro lifers are wanting to ban abortion for anything beyond poorly thought out theocratic reasons.

These people support outlawing everything they consider "immoral." That means abortion. That means gay marriage(and if they could revive sodomy laws - they would). That means recreational drugs(and if they could reinstate alcohol prohibition - they would). So its all fine for them to shove their religious beliefs down our throats.

But watch how fast they flip out about supposed attempts to pass Sharia Law, or have birth control added to insurance plans(which forces NO ONE to actually use birth control). Its amazing.

You know, Christians actually DO face persecution in some countries but America is not one of them.

They just don't get the separation of Church and State. Its not about stopping Christians from practicing their faith. Its about stopping Christians(and every other religion) from LEGISLATING their faith. It also makes for separation of Mosque and State, separation of Temple and State. It mean no one is forced to follow any religion but their own.

No one is forced to pray to Mecca 5 times a day, nor forced to cover their faces. No one bows to The Vatican who does not choose to. And if means that we are not supposed to be forced into your beliefs either. You live like a Christian because YOU want to. I do what I WANT TO - so long as it does not harm other people/society in a tangible way. That is called FREEDOM - you might want to look up the term some day.
 
2012-10-13 03:50:57 AM

FrailChild: By the way, this incessant harping on rape is disgusting. I am way turned off by these fear mongering tactics.

I only hope the rest of the country isn't dumb enough to fall for this juvenile propaganda.


Maybe you should tell the Republicans to stop bringing it up?
 
2012-10-13 03:54:48 AM

Summoner101: Maybe you should tell the Republicans to stop bringing it up?


Read the transcripts - read this very article. It's one of those news cycle hot button issues at the moment... every Republican getting grilled about rape to perpetuate it. I'm sure it's a talking point that Obama's team distributed to the reporters that he socializes with... attends their weddings... to former Democrat campaign staffers... you know, most of the media...
 
2012-10-13 04:02:50 AM

FrailChild: Summoner101: Maybe you should tell the Republicans to stop bringing it up?

Read the transcripts - read this very article. It's one of those news cycle hot button issues at the moment... every Republican getting grilled about rape to perpetuate it. I'm sure it's a talking point that Obama's team distributed to the reporters that he socializes with... attends their weddings... to former Democrat campaign staffers... you know, most of the media...


Hrmmmm...Republicans could A) not constantly elect bigoted douchebags, or B) complain when people point out that Republicans keep electing bigoted douchebags. Clearly B is the choice of champions.
 
2012-10-13 04:03:17 AM

FrailChild: Summoner101: Maybe you should tell the Republicans to stop bringing it up?

Read the transcripts - read this very article. It's one of those news cycle hot button issues at the moment... every Republican getting grilled about rape to perpetuate it. I'm sure it's a talking point that Obama's team distributed to the reporters that he socializes with... attends their weddings... to former Democrat campaign staffers... you know, most of the media...


That "Liberal media" talking point is all I need to confirm your disconnect with reality.
 
2012-10-13 04:03:21 AM

FrailChild: Why punish the child for the crimes of the father? Adoption is a much more humane option than abortion.

However, this case is so hysterical and so moot and completely detracts from reality. Less than 1% of abortions are due to rape & the vast majority of pro-life people are willing to compromise on this issue and allow abortion in the cases of rape, incest and the mother's health (which together account for 3% of abortions).


yep right-wingers want gov't so small it can get inside a woman's womb from the time of conception and force her to bear her rapist's child. seems reasonable.

actually no, it seems utterly christian fascist. see: "the handmaid's tale"

and uncited statisticals aside, the fact that yes, rape pregnancies do in fact occur, makes opinions such as this one very sober and relevant to reality and hardly "moot"

inigomontoya.jpg

and the fact that pro-lifers are willing to "compromise" on an issue of "murder", just reveals the internal logical and moral inconsistency of their own position
 
2012-10-13 04:08:09 AM

The Dog Ate My Homework: AdolfOliverPanties: What the fark is wrong with these people?

The Old Testament is what's wrong with these people. Way too much Old Testament.


It the Old Testament, a child's wasn't considered "alive" until it was one month old.
 
2012-10-13 04:09:27 AM

FrailChild: Summoner101: Maybe you should tell the Republicans to stop bringing it up?

Read the transcripts - read this very article. It's one of those news cycle hot button issues at the moment... every Republican getting grilled about rape to perpetuate it. I'm sure it's a talking point that Obama's team distributed to the reporters that he socializes with... attends their weddings... to former Democrat campaign staffers... you know, most of the media...


So in an election season, it is wrong to ask an elected official questions, during an interview at a news station no less, that are important to the electorate and doubly so to press him on the question when he chooses to evade it? You do realize elected officials are supposed to represent their votes, right? If they won't answer a simple yes/no question about a policy, they shouldn't just be let go because the wrong answer might hurt them politically. The congressman could've ended the grilling on the spot by just answering the question instead of saying he'll defer his judgement to the legislative process that he's a part of and can exert influence over.

But that rests on you actually being curious about the policy positions of our elected officials, and not simply letting your vote be decided by party affiliation or personality.
 
2012-10-13 04:09:34 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: Emposter: Something happened.

That "Something" would be the Tea Party.


I think it started before then. It was about 2003-2004 when I swore to never vote for a Republican for anything again.. though they've made me renew that vow many, many, MANY times since then.
 
2012-10-13 04:10:49 AM

Summoner101: FrailChild: Summoner101: Maybe you should tell the Republicans to stop bringing it up?

Read the transcripts - read this very article. It's one of those news cycle hot button issues at the moment... every Republican getting grilled about rape to perpetuate it. I'm sure it's a talking point that Obama's team distributed to the reporters that he socializes with... attends their weddings... to former Democrat campaign staffers... you know, most of the media...

So in an election season, it is wrong to ask an elected official questions, during an interview at a news station no less, that are important to the electorate and doubly so to press him on the question when he chooses to evade it? You do realize elected officials are supposed to represent their voters, right? If they won't answer a simple yes/no question about a policy, they shouldn't just be let go because the wrong answer might hurt them politically. The congressman could've ended the grilling on the spot by just answering the question instead of saying he'll defer his judgement to the legislative process that he's a part of and can exert influence over.

But that rests on you actually being curious about the policy positions of our elected officials, and not simply letting your vote be decided by party affiliation or personality.


FTFM
 
2012-10-13 04:18:02 AM

FrailChild: Why punish the child for the crimes of the father? Adoption is a much more humane option than abortion.

However, this case is so hysterical and so moot and completely detracts from reality. Less than 1% of abortions are due to rape & the vast majority of pro-life people are willing to compromise on this issue and allow abortion in the cases of rape, incest and the mother's health (which together account for 3% of abortions).


Why "punish" the "child" you say? Not getting a chance to exist is not the same as punishing. Every time a woman has a period, or a man masturbates rather than cumming inside a woman - that is at least one potential human life that will not get to exist. Getting an abortion is no different. Neither is a miscarriage.

Liberals have been getting their asses kicked on this issue because they concede too much ground to people like you. They allow you to narrate that abortion is wrong. It is not. Anything to the contrary is merely your RELIGIOUS VIEWS (not supported by actual scripture but that is a whole other post). Your religious views should not be imposed on anyone else. There is no logical reason that abortion should be frowned upon.

I think more people should get abortions - especially people who cannot afford to raise a child out of their own money. People who will be forced into welfare as a result should just abort it and save taxpayers like me tons of money that I should not have to spend on your "little miracle." How about the pro lifers pay for all the welfare from here on out? Seems more fair to me.

So you think abortion is so wrong - ok then. DON"T GET ONE. I think its fine - so I can and do encourage people to get them.

I'm proud to say I have talked several girls into getting abortions. These are not girls I slept with either. But they got pregnant from scumbag guys and where not ready to raise a child. The abortion was the responsible choice. Yes they should have been on birth control to start - but they made a mistake and FIXED THEIR MISTAKE. Having children for the Government to support - that is not taking responsibility at all.
 
2012-10-13 04:45:12 AM

Jim_Callahan: RedPhoenix122: Nah, that's half the problem. The other half is minding their own business.

Which their religion, assuming we're talking about Christianity here, specifically forbids several times throughout the new testament (if you don't evangelize, persecute sinners, etc, the bible specifically disavows you and generally notes that you get to burn eternally).

Which kind of brings us back to religion being the problem.

//I mean, the people that just claim they're religious while violating most of the core demands of their religion are, in fact, typically massively better and more moral people for it, but let's at least try to be factual. If you look at the source book(s) for the religion, those folks are clearly good people in spite of their faith, or alternately because of their lack thereof.


See, Christianity also teaches about "love your neighbor" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", but they ignore those passages when it suits them. These people already want to dehumanize gays, oppress women, etc., the bible just gives them an excuse. They want the Ten Commandments hung in public buildings, yet have no issues ignoring them when it suits them. These people are already bad people, and religion is not the cause nor the answer. It just is.

I firmly believe that if the bible had never been written, or Christianity had never taken form in this country, these bigoted, selfish, power hungry control freaks would search for another method to manipulate the masses to their gain.
 
Xai
2012-10-13 04:49:32 AM
he would know all about rape, after that thing back in 1987...
 
2012-10-13 04:52:17 AM

RedPhoenix122: Jim_Callahan: RedPhoenix122: Nah, that's half the problem. The other half is minding their own business.

Which their religion, assuming we're talking about Christianity here, specifically forbids several times throughout the new testament (if you don't evangelize, persecute sinners, etc, the bible specifically disavows you and generally notes that you get to burn eternally).

Which kind of brings us back to religion being the problem.

//I mean, the people that just claim they're religious while violating most of the core demands of their religion are, in fact, typically massively better and more moral people for it, but let's at least try to be factual. If you look at the source book(s) for the religion, those folks are clearly good people in spite of their faith, or alternately because of their lack thereof.

See, Christianity also teaches about "love your neighbor" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", but they ignore those passages when it suits them. These people already want to dehumanize gays, oppress women, etc., the bible just gives them an excuse. They want the Ten Commandments hung in public buildings, yet have no issues ignoring them when it suits them. These people are already bad people, and religion is not the cause nor the answer. It just is.

I firmly believe that if the bible had never been written, or Christianity had never taken form in this country, these bigoted, selfish, power hungry control freaks would search for another method to manipulate the masses to their gain.


One of the Ten Commandments is Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness, but Republican media does that constantly.
 
2012-10-13 04:52:53 AM

Alphax: One of the Ten Commandments is Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness, but Republican media does that constantly.


Yes, also the ones about killing, loving your neighbor, etc.
 
2012-10-13 05:26:46 AM

RedPhoenix122: Alphax: One of the Ten Commandments is Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness, but Republican media does that constantly.

Yes, also the ones about killing, loving your neighbor, etc.


Show me where a Conservative EVER advocates for turning the other cheek.

Yeah I didn't think so. Conservatives say they love Jesus with their lips and demonstrate they hate him with every other thing they do. I don't know who their Lord is - but it sure isn't Jesus.
 
2012-10-13 05:27:19 AM

Summoner101: FrailChild: Summoner101: Maybe you should tell the Republicans to stop bringing it up?

Read the transcripts - read this very article. It's one of those news cycle hot button issues at the moment... every Republican getting grilled about rape to perpetuate it. I'm sure it's a talking point that Obama's team distributed to the reporters that he socializes with... attends their weddings... to former Democrat campaign staffers... you know, most of the media...

So in an election season, it is wrong to ask an elected official questions, during an interview at a news station no less, that are important to the electorate and doubly so to press him on the question when he chooses to evade it? You do realize elected officials are supposed to represent their votes, right? If they won't answer a simple yes/no question about a policy, they shouldn't just be let go because the wrong answer might hurt them politically. The congressman could've ended the grilling on the spot by just answering the question instead of saying he'll defer his judgement to the legislative process that he's a part of and can exert influence over.

But that rests on you actually being curious about the policy positions of our elected officials, and not simply letting your vote be decided by party affiliation or personality.


The disconnect is in the average Republican's genteel distaste for bringing up the topic at all...note FrailChild's wish that Republicans would just stop talking about it. Meaning they can do things like pass legislation against abortion, gay marriage, make miscarriages suspect, whatever...but do let's not actually TALK about it. Those icky icky subjects make us feel bad about our moral hypocrisy, so let's just not talk about it, and we'll demonize those godless Democrats and liberals who keep forcing the issue out into the open.

It's a very old, very classist way of dealing with unpleasant topics, that is, not to deal with them; and one reason upper-class conservatives seem so clueless about issues like this--have such completely unrealistic viewpoints like "Abortion is murder except in cases of rape and incest" is because in polite society it's just Not Talked About Dear. You'll notice that in lower-class conservative circles, they have no such dualistic views: Abortion is murder, period. It's no less realistic, but at least it's consistent.
 
2012-10-13 05:43:15 AM
Republicans are bad for my health. It's not even a huge exaggeration to say that an unchecked Romney / Teapublican administration could be the death of me.
 
2012-10-13 06:05:09 AM
I would like to challenge each and every pro-life conservative to donate - generously - your time and/or money to your local pregnancy resource center. Conversely, you could toss some money at the charity John Stamos promotes - Project Cuddle.

Both efforts would show that you care about the sanctity of life far more than arguing this same position over and over or trying to force your sense of morality on others. You will only make matters worse.

While I'll happily agree with you that *life* begins at conception, to me the law is very clear that *personhood* begins at birth. And, our laws speak to the rights of the *person*. Not lifeforms in general.

Abortion is horribly sad. But, if you want more people to err on the side of life - give them the tools to do so.

It might actually make a difference.
 
2012-10-13 06:53:25 AM

fusillade762: "I'm pro-life, I'm concerned about the unborn and people who can't take care of themselves."

I'm calling bullshiat on that last part.


It's really not bullshiat--he really DOES care about people who can't take care of themselves.

Specifically,he's VERY concerned that someone somewhere might be receiving undeserved assistance, and would love to ensure that it's both rare and extremely grudging.
 
2012-10-13 07:35:59 AM

fusillade762: "I'm pro-life, I'm concerned about the unborn and people who can't take care of themselves."

I'm calling bullshiat on that last part.


Whenever they say they are worried about the "people who can't take care of themselves" it always sounds like they are referring to the mother. Otherwise why would these republican men (and some women...sigh) feel such a great need to step in and make our decisions for us?
 
2012-10-13 07:51:07 AM
I am very much of the position that if the decision on abortion belongs solely to the woman with consultation from her doctor, then that choice by its very nature cannot be subsidized by the very people who were just told it was none of their business. Can't have it both ways. Your individual choice ends at my individual wallet.

I'm also in favor of no rape/incest exception. However the rights of a fetus may evolve from conception to birth, the circumstances of conception, no matter how violent or horrible, should not have a bearing on the rights of a fetus one way or the other.

Having said that, a couple things:

1) If a rape victim finds herself in a spot where she's got to carry the fetus to term, it behooves the rest of us to step up and help out seeing as her choice to plan a family was taken away from her. First, that means the rapist gets 21 years at hard labor with the revenue from said labor going directly to the child's upbringing and/or a combination of prison labor and asset forfeiture adding up to 21 years' support. I would recommend similar asset forfeiture from all sex-crime felons regardless of whether or not they got anybody pregnant. As for the rest of the cost...pregnancies stemming from rapes carried to term are quite rare compared to conventional births. I think the kids would easily be in enough of a unique situation where taxpayers can make up the difference in support without undue hardship. And if there isn't a cause more sympathetic than a mom trying to do the right thing under the hardest circumstances most of us can imagine, I don't know what cause is.

2) I'm very much in favor of full-spectrum sex ed with abstinence first and foremost but not the sole method under discussion. The church does have a role in this - namely, the explanation of the damage that untrammeled sex without a deeper connection does to the human spirit over time. (We farkers will never get untrammeled sex of any kind, so it's not an issue for us.)
 
2012-10-13 07:54:40 AM

Gulper Eel: I am very much of the position that if the decision on abortion belongs solely to the woman with consultation from her doctor, then that choice by its very nature cannot be subsidized by the very people who were just told it was none of their business. Can't have it both ways. Your individual choice ends at my individual wallet.


Which is why federal funding does not, cannot, and has not paid for abortions. Now, you can quite rightly STFU about any woman's decision about abortion at any time under any circumstance.

/not you, you, plural you..
 
2012-10-13 07:56:19 AM

gadian: Gulper Eel: I am very much of the position that if the decision on abortion belongs solely to the woman with consultation from her doctor, then that choice by its very nature cannot be subsidized by the very people who were just told it was none of their business. Can't have it both ways. Your individual choice ends at my individual wallet.

Which is why federal funding does not, cannot, and has not paid for abortions. Now, you can quite rightly STFU about any woman's decision about abortion at any time under any circumstance.

/not you, you, plural you..


Be easy on him. The Hyde amendment has only been around for almost 30 years.
 
2012-10-13 07:57:39 AM
Would "I'm going to kill myself if you try to force me to carry this child" count as a "live of the mother" exception to abortion bans?
 
2012-10-13 08:06:06 AM
Good to know that if someone accidently came in his wife he'd raise the child. What a blessing.
 
2012-10-13 08:06:10 AM

Jorn the Younger: Would "I'm going to kill myself if you try to force me to carry this child" count as a "life of the mother" exception to abortion bans?


ftfm
 
2012-10-13 08:11:19 AM

Jorn the Younger: Jorn the Younger: Would "I'm going to kill myself if you try to force me to carry this child" count as a "life of the mother" exception to abortion bans?

ftfm


I can think of a whole slew of psychological reasons why women might NEED abortions. Legitimately (heh). Yet, aside from rape trauma, the psychological needs are completely brushed aside as weakness or lies. While this treatment of mental health is indicative of society's treatment of mental health in general, I firmly believe that there needs to be psychological exceptions to any would-be abortion bans. I also believe that plying pregnant women / new moms with lots and lots of free or inexpensive therapy and approved meds could go along way towards maternal health and happiness.
 
2012-10-13 08:15:38 AM
So, you might disagree, but can you stop your moral outrage for one second and realize that if your belief is indeed that a fetus is a human being with rights, then this makes perfect sense?

Take all your GOP Rapery jokes and shelve them for just one second.

If that is a life, then why is that life less protected than a regular pregnancy?

I'm not necessarily saying I agree with it lock, stock, and barrel, but it doesn't take a rocket surgeon or a brain scientist to understand that you can oppose abortion based on reasoning other than fundie derptitude. But the Fark Snark Patrol again trips over itself in its rush to remind everyone how awful Christians are and that abortion is a Jerry Falwell wedge issue in a wider effort to crucify teh gheys and wymen, not a legitimate grounds for debating where inalienable human rights begin.
 
2012-10-13 08:25:04 AM

daveUSMC: So, you might disagree, but can you stop your moral outrage for one second and realize that if your belief is indeed that a fetus is a human being with rights, then this makes perfect sense?


A fetus is NOT a human being, anymore than an acorn is an oak tree.
 
2012-10-13 08:27:48 AM

daveUSMC: So, you might disagree, but can you stop your moral outrage for one second and realize that if your belief is indeed that a fetus is a human being with rights, then this makes perfect sense?

Yes, if you accept the initial premise as true, this can logicially follow. But the initial premise is not true.

Take all your GOP Rapery jokes and shelve them for just one second.

If that is a life, then why is that life less protected than a regular pregnancy?

It shouldn't be. Abortion shouldn't be allowed only in "cases of rape, incest, or saving the life of the mother" it should be allowed in all cases where it is desired by the woman in question.

I'm not necessarily saying I agree with it lock, stock, and barrel, but it doesn't take a rocket surgeon or a brain scientist to understand that you can oppose abortion based on reasoning other than fundie derptitude.
Can you? Can you really? I'm not so sure.

I hypothetically accepted your initial proposal, hows about you try mine.
First, there is no God. No Divine Creator, no Divine Plan, (no Ineffable plan neither)
Given that there is no God, the concept of holyness is illusory. The word "sacred" is meaningless.
Since the human race is not on the verge of extinction due to underpopulation, what rational reason can you provide to oppose abortion?

But the Fark Snark Patrol again trips over itself in its rush to remind everyone how awful Christians are and that abortion is a Jerry Falwell wedge issue in a wider effort to crucify teh gheys and wymen, not a legitimate grounds for debating where inalienable human rights begin.
Your ire here seems misdirected. Instead of getting annoyed at the "Fark Snark Patrol" for being aware that there are assholes who call themselves "Christians", why not get annoyed with people who loudly proclaim themselves to be "Christians" and then proceed to act like assholes?
 
2012-10-13 08:30:48 AM

daveUSMC: So, you might disagree, but can you stop your moral outrage for one second and realize that if your belief is indeed that a fetus is a human being with rights, then this makes perfect sense?

Take all your GOP Rapery jokes and shelve them for just one second.

If that is a life, then why is that life less protected than a regular pregnancy?

I'm not necessarily saying I agree with it lock, stock, and barrel, but it doesn't take a rocket surgeon or a brain scientist to understand that you can oppose abortion based on reasoning other than fundie derptitude. But the Fark Snark Patrol again trips over itself in its rush to remind everyone how awful Christians are and that abortion is a Jerry Falwell wedge issue in a wider effort to crucify teh gheys and wymen, not a legitimate grounds for debating where inalienable human rights begin.


This argument may have more weight if the people usually proposing it weren't for the death penalty, against welfare, and stoking the fires of war
 
2012-10-13 09:12:27 AM

freetomato: If you are not a female, you should have been.


I actually get that quite a bit. I'm ok with this.
 
2012-10-13 09:28:33 AM

Jorn the Younger: daveUSMC: So, you might disagree, but can you stop your moral outrage for one second and realize that if your belief is indeed that a fetus is a human being with rights, then this makes perfect sense?
Yes, if you accept the initial premise as true, this can logicially follow. But the initial premise is not true.

Take all your GOP Rapery jokes and shelve them for just one second.

If that is a life, then why is that life less protected than a regular pregnancy?
It shouldn't be. Abortion shouldn't be allowed only in "cases of rape, incest, or saving the life of the mother" it should be allowed in all cases where it is desired by the woman in question.

I'm not necessarily saying I agree with it lock, stock, and barrel, but it doesn't take a rocket surgeon or a brain scientist to understand that you can oppose abortion based on reasoning other than fundie derptitude.
Can you? Can you really? I'm not so sure.

I hypothetically accepted your initial proposal, hows about you try mine.
First, there is no God. No Divine Creator, no Divine Plan, (no Ineffable plan neither)
Given that there is no God, the concept of holyness is illusory. The word "sacred" is meaningless.
Since the human race is not on the verge of extinction due to underpopulation, what rational reason can you provide to oppose abortion?

But the Fark Snark Patrol again trips over itself in its rush to remind everyone how awful Christians are and that abortion is a Jerry Falwell wedge issue in a wider effort to crucify teh gheys and wymen, not a legitimate grounds for debating where inalienable human rights begin.
Your ire here seems misdirected. Instead of getting annoyed at the "Fark Snark Patrol" for being aware that there are assholes who call themselves "Christians", why not get annoyed with people who loudly proclaim themselves to be "Christians" and then proceed to act like assholes?


Can't I be annoyed at both groups?

My main point is that if you take the emotional and/or religious taint (hehe) from this issue, both sides have very legitimate points of view. The "correct" answer just hinges on whether or not it is a human life, which I can't really say one way or another, which is I guess why I don't have a very strong opinion one way or another other than to get really annoyed with people who do nothing but yell about how (amazing/stupid) Jesus is and that is the only reason why abortion is (the worst thing to ever plague the land/the most important and sacred right to be preserved).

To your earlier point, I don't really think religious leanings have much to do with the sacredness of human rights. By your logic, why have any protections on any rights if we're overpopulated anyways. Let oppression, war, and murder freely abound because there are too many of us anyway? WTF? So are you for a military program that reintegrates foreign civilian population centers with exploding napalm too?

In conclusion, you can be very pro life or very pro choice and have legitimate and intellectually sound reasons for both. Please, can we all leave the religious browbeating out of it on both sides? I just find it incredibly stale to resort to framing the debate around religious nutjobs instead of the intellectual strengths and weaknesses of both sides.
 
2012-10-13 09:49:07 AM

daveUSMC: Jorn the Younger: daveUSMC: So, you might disagree, but can you stop your moral outrage for one second and realize that if your belief is indeed that a fetus is a human being with rights, then this makes perfect sense?
Yes, if you accept the initial premise as true, this can logicially follow. But the initial premise is not true.

Take all your GOP Rapery jokes and shelve them for just one second.

If that is a life, then why is that life less protected than a regular pregnancy?
It shouldn't be. Abortion shouldn't be allowed only in "cases of rape, incest, or saving the life of the mother" it should be allowed in all cases where it is desired by the woman in question.

I'm not necessarily saying I agree with it lock, stock, and barrel, but it doesn't take a rocket surgeon or a brain scientist to understand that you can oppose abortion based on reasoning other than fundie derptitude.
Can you? Can you really? I'm not so sure.

I hypothetically accepted your initial proposal, hows about you try mine.
First, there is no God. No Divine Creator, no Divine Plan, (no Ineffable plan neither)
Given that there is no God, the concept of holyness is illusory. The word "sacred" is meaningless.
Since the human race is not on the verge of extinction due to underpopulation, what rational reason can you provide to oppose abortion?

But the Fark Snark Patrol again trips over itself in its rush to remind everyone how awful Christians are and that abortion is a Jerry Falwell wedge issue in a wider effort to crucify teh gheys and wymen, not a legitimate grounds for debating where inalienable human rights begin.
Your ire here seems misdirected. Instead of getting annoyed at the "Fark Snark Patrol" for being aware that there are assholes who call themselves "Christians", why not get annoyed with people who loudly proclaim themselves to be "Christians" and then proceed to act like assholes?


Can't I be annoyed at both groups?

My main point is that if you take the emotional and/or religious taint (hehe) from this issue, both sides have very legitimate points of view. The "correct" answer just hinges on whether or not it is a human life, which I can't really say one way or another, which is I guess why I don't have a very strong opinion one way or another other than to get really annoyed with people who do nothing but yell about how (amazing/stupid) Jesus is and that is the only reason why abortion is (the worst thing to ever plague the land/the most important and sacred right to be preserved).

To your earlier point, I don't really think religious leanings have much to do with the sacredness of human rights. By your logic, why have any protections on any rights if we're overpopulated anyways. Let oppression, war, and murder freely abound because there are too many of us anyway? WTF? So are you for a military program that reintegrates foreign civilian population centers with exploding napalm too?

In conclusion, you can be very pro life or very pro choice and have legitimate and intellectually sound reasons for both. Please, can we all leave the religious browbeating out of it on both sides? I just find it incredibly stale to resort to framing the debate around religious nutjobs instead of the intellectual strengths and weaknesses of both sides.


What you are representing as my logic is not, in fact, my logic. Risk of extinction due to underpopulation would be a non-religious based argument for banning abortion (there was a BSG episode about this), however it's not one that applies to the world today, so I was just throwing the argument away ahead of time. I'm not saying "we're overpopulated, so abortions for everyone, and it's disingenuous to imply otherwise.

It's also the only reason I can think of that doesn't come from "because God"

A fetus is not a person, is not, in fact, a human being. A fetus is a potential human being, just like every ovum and every sperm. Would you argue that individual sperm have human rights?

And no, I don't believe human rights to be "sacred" because sacred is related to divinity, and divinity is fictional. I do believe basic human rights are essential, primarily the right to self-determine. That is, the right to decide ones own future. Anti-abortionists want to take that right away from women who engage iun activity of which the anti-abortionists disapprove.

And you have again asserted that there are legitimate points and intellectually sound reasons to oppose abortion. I'm again asking you to provide some examples. "Because God", "Because Jesus" or any subset thereof is not an intellectionally sound reason, and the only other one I can come up with doesn't apply to the real world.

And for the record, no, I'm not in favor of depopulating foreign population centers with a liberal application of napalm, but that's a pretty stupid analogy anyway. Though I suppose I can see where it's coming from- anything to draw parallels between not yet developed clusters of cells, and living, breathing people.
 
2012-10-13 09:50:45 AM
Anti-abortionists want to take that right away from women who engage in activity, willingly or unwillingly, of which the anti-abortionists disapprove.

FTFM
 
2012-10-13 09:53:36 AM
Also, even if one doesn't realize their particular mythology is also fictional, Becaue God isn't a valid justification for legislation, Because First Amendment.
 
2012-10-13 09:59:05 AM
i75.photobucket.com

Not that weird a conclusion, just more obviously wrong.
 
2012-10-13 10:23:00 AM
I may have misinterpreted some of your earlier points, my bad.

I just wish you could acknowledge that your assertion that a fetus is absolutely not a human being, and is therefore completely devoid of human rights is the center of gravity for your position. There is no way to make that assertion (or to deny that assertion) with any absolute scientific conclusion, because determining when "humanity" begins is an un-scientific question; it is a social/cultural one.

I don't really know when that clump of cells crosses the line from clump of cells to a human life. I don't think anyone can really know, you can only draw your line in the sand either based on your pre-existing religious (or non-religious, political, or personal backgrounds.

How can you impose your particular view of when that line is drawn on everyone else, when there is clearly no objective answer? I pose this question to fundies, as well. How can you ascertain that life is 100% human at conception?

BOTH SIDES have legitimate arguments, but in the end, both sides will have to resort to their own subjective paradigms in defining the beginning of a human life with human rights. To bash people because they have come to different subjective conclusions on this uknowable line in the sand does nothing other than make you feel superior and self-satisfied that those "other" people are retarded and primitive, and YOU have the enlightened position.

Bottom line, you declaring that a fetus is not a human life does not make it true. Neither does your evil twin's assertion that it is a human life make him right. So why don't we work on setting the conditions to prevent the situation as often as possible by having better sex education, contraception education, and try to raise our kids to only have anal sex? Isn't getting farked in the butt what America is all about, after all?
 
2012-10-13 10:42:45 AM

Makh:
Not to mention, this is an unplanned pregnancy. Which means she didn't intend to get pregnant for a number of reasons, one lack of resources amassed. Are you going to help her get assistance, pay for her medical costs or daycare so she can support herself or her child? No, I didn't think so. She's just going to be a lazy welfare mom in your eyes. You think giving birth is cheap?
...
Just like rape, no matter what happens to her, you don't care, it's her problem to fix. God forbid if she fixes the problem in a way you don't like.


THIS THIS, and all of THIS!

Beyond just the disgusting vindictiveness of their ideals, social conservatives' cognitive abilities are so stunted, they can't even see beyond their childish views to the larger consequences and impracticalities that implementing them causes. They don't want to be part of a civilized society.
 
2012-10-13 10:53:49 AM

Summoner101: gadian: Gulper Eel: I am very much of the position that if the decision on abortion belongs solely to the woman with consultation from her doctor, then that choice by its very nature cannot be subsidized by the very people who were just told it was none of their business. Can't have it both ways. Your individual choice ends at my individual wallet.

Which is why federal funding does not, cannot, and has not paid for abortions. Now, you can quite rightly STFU about any woman's decision about abortion at any time under any circumstance.

/not you, you, plural you..

Be easy on him. The Hyde amendment has only been around for almost 30 years.


And over the years there have been court challenges and other efforts to circumvent it. I don't see many of my friends in pro-choice land wanting to touch that unpopular argument with a ten-foot pole, though. The acquisition of power, as it is for all in politics, is more important than principles.
 
2012-10-13 11:05:04 AM

FirstNationalBastard: AdolfOliverPanties: What the fark is wrong with these people?

Religion.


Religion, Rape, Republican
The three "R's"
 
2012-10-13 11:05:22 AM
seems fair considering judges put men on the hook for the lifetime support of a child they had nothing more to do with creating than living in the same house as the mother.
 
2012-10-13 11:07:21 AM
...to clarify, because we're throwing all regard for causal justice out the door, and the only thing that matters anymore is 'the welfare of the child'
 
2012-10-13 11:08:24 AM

grokca: Religion, Rape, Republican. The three "R's"


I prefer the five Rs - Religion, Rape, Republicanism, Racism and Rape.
 
2012-10-13 11:08:58 AM

Gulper Eel: Summoner101: gadian: Gulper Eel: I am very much of the position that if the decision on abortion belongs solely to the woman with consultation from her doctor, then that choice by its very nature cannot be subsidized by the very people who were just told it was none of their business. Can't have it both ways. Your individual choice ends at my individual wallet.

Which is why federal funding does not, cannot, and has not paid for abortions. Now, you can quite rightly STFU about any woman's decision about abortion at any time under any circumstance.

/not you, you, plural you..

Be easy on him. The Hyde amendment has only been around for almost 30 years.

And over the years there have been court challenges and other efforts to circumvent it. I don't see many of my friends in pro-choice land wanting to touch that unpopular argument with a ten-foot pole, though. The acquisition of power, as it is for all in politics, is more important than principles.


So our laws are being challenged, argued, and ruled on in front of a judge(s) to determine their veracity under precedent and constitutionality? Excuse me while I quell my outrage.

And I'd imagine that the people arguing against the Hyde Amendment wouldn't would have principles that don't agree with your principles. Your principles aren't everyone's, just as mine aren't yours.
 
2012-10-13 11:19:11 AM
Hyde Amendment would have principles*

/stupid phone
 
2012-10-13 11:25:41 AM

daveUSMC: I may have misinterpreted some of your earlier points, my bad.

I just wish you could acknowledge that your assertion that a fetus is absolutely not a human being, and is therefore completely devoid of human rights is the center of gravity for your position. There is no way to make that assertion (or to deny that assertion) with any absolute scientific conclusion, because determining when "humanity" begins is an un-scientific question; it is a social/cultural one.

I don't really know when that clump of cells crosses the line from clump of cells to a human life. I don't think anyone can really know, you can only draw your line in the sand either based on your pre-existing religious (or non-religious, political, or personal backgrounds.

How can you impose your particular view of when that line is drawn on everyone else, when there is clearly no objective answer? I pose this question to fundies, as well. How can you ascertain that life is 100% human at conception?

BOTH SIDES have legitimate arguments, but in the end, both sides will have to resort to their own subjective paradigms in defining the beginning of a human life with human rights. To bash people because they have come to different subjective conclusions on this uknowable line in the sand does nothing other than make you feel superior and self-satisfied that those "other" people are retarded and primitive, and YOU have the enlightened position.

Bottom line, you declaring that a fetus is not a human life does not make it true. Neither does your evil twin's assertion that it is a human life make him right. So why don't we work on setting the conditions to prevent the situation as often as possible by having better sex education, contraception education, and try to raise our kids to only have anal sex? Isn't getting farked in the butt what America is all about, after all?


You're right, there is subjectivity regarding where that line should be drawn. My personal opinion on the matter is that a fetus becomes a human life when it becomes a distinct life form- when the umbilical chord is severed. I understand that not everyone agrees that this line should be put in the same place, which is why I don't advocate enacting legislation forcing everyone to abide by my personal opinion on that matter. I'm not trying to impose my personal view on anyone. Anti-abortionists are. They want everyone to have to put that line where they do, and they want to use the law to do it.

For a third time you're saying there are legitimate arguments on both sides. I don't believe you. There is no legitimate argument for outlawing abortion. Unless you can provide examples of arguments that aren't "Because God" I will continue to disagree with you when you assert that there are.

And I'm also not "bashing" anyone. I'm not saying "haha look at those dumb rubes who believe in god" or anything like that. I am stating that mythologies are fictional because they are, but again, even if there weren't, the Separation of Church and State, as mandated by the First Amendment to the Constitution dictates that "because my religion says so" is not a valid justifcation for legistlation.

Joe Biden said during the VP debate that be believes life begins at conception, but that this is his view, informed by his faith, and as such should not be legislated. This is, in my opinion, the correct mindset. "I have my opinion, but my opinion shouldn't be the law"

I'm not pro-abortion (nobody actually is, really) but I am anti-theocrat, and will always stand in opposition to tyrany.

If you'd like to have a discussion of the scientific facts of fetal development, and at what stage in that development constitues "human life" we can have that discussion. If you want to have a discussion about when society views someone as a living human, we can have that discussion to- it's a fairly interesting subject, what with the sporadic nature with which rights and privileges are afforded to young people (limited free speech to schoolchildren, drive at 16, vote, smoke, enlist at 18, drink at 21, plus that massively murky area of criminal prosecution where 14 year olds can be "charged as an adult").

But neither of those discussions is likely to lead to a point where we say "And that's why we need to pass a law stating women shouldn't be allowed to get abortions"
 
2012-10-13 12:02:06 PM
You are not hearing my argument either, there seems to be some disconnect.

My reason for accepting the legitimacy of an non-religious pro-life argument is that you can believe that human life begins prior to birth, which has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in God. And if you believe that human life is the only pre-requisite for human rights, then you can reasonably conclude without any reference to God, that abortion should not be legal because it violates a person's right to life.

I'm not saying that is or is not my own view, I'm just saying that you framing this as a religious vs. non-religious argument is flawed. The more people that are willing to hear things that don't fit their neatly organized political frames of reference, a more productive a debate will be had.

Instead, you are writing off anyone who is against legalized abortions as projecting their religious views into legislation - which although often true, is absolutely not always the case.
 
2012-10-13 12:23:39 PM
I'm not writing off anyone, I'm saying I've not encountered an argument against legal abortion that isn't religious in nature. You continue to assert that these arguments exist, yet will not or cannot seem to provide any examples.

Since you're so certain that such an argument can be made, I'm challenging you to make it. Why, without referencing, God, the soul, or religion, should abortion be illegal? If you believe human life begins at conception, please explain why you believe this to be the case, given the actual physiology involved.

What compelling and just argument is there that a woman must never be allowed to undergo this medical procedure?
 
2012-10-13 12:31:46 PM
If I am ever raped and become pregnant as a result, I am listing Rick Berg as the father and then giving up all of my parental rights.
 
2012-10-13 12:39:13 PM

anarchy_x: It's a child, not a choice.


It is my choice whether or not to carry it to term or even take care of it afterwards though...

/are you REALLY sure you want to risk putting me in charge of babbies?
 
2012-10-13 12:40:20 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: If you're "pro-life" and ok with exceptions then you are a hypocrite and don't deserve to be trusted.

 
2012-10-13 12:59:20 PM

daveUSMC: BOTH SIDES have legitimate arguments


That's awesome and all, but only one side is attempting to legislate their views on other people.
 
2012-10-13 01:00:33 PM

daveUSMC: You are not hearing my argument either, there seems to be some disconnect.

My reason for accepting the legitimacy of an non-religious pro-life argument is that you can believe that human life begins prior to birth, which has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in God. And if you believe that human life is the only pre-requisite for human rights, then you can reasonably conclude without any reference to God, that abortion should not be legal because it violates a person's right to life.

I'm not saying that is or is not my own view, I'm just saying that you framing this as a religious vs. non-religious argument is flawed. The more people that are willing to hear things that don't fit their neatly organized political frames of reference, a more productive a debate will be had.

Instead, you are writing off anyone who is against legalized abortions as projecting their religious views into legislation - which although often true, is absolutely not always the case.


Uh, you're the one ignoring him actually.
 
2012-10-13 01:08:57 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: daveUSMC: BOTH SIDES have legitimate arguments

That's awesome and all, but only one side is attempting to legislate their views on other people.


Correct. And, if you read what I posted earlier, you'll see that there are, indeed, things pro-lifers could do to help make abortion a bit less frequently sought. They won't. By large numbers, they don't care enough to do those things. They simply want to have their brand of morality legislated into reality.

And, that's not a solution.
 
2012-10-13 01:18:21 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: daveUSMC: You are not hearing my argument either, there seems to be some disconnect.

My reason for accepting the legitimacy of an non-religious pro-life argument is that you can believe that human life begins prior to birth, which has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in God. And if you believe that human life is the only pre-requisite for human rights, then you can reasonably conclude without any reference to God, that abortion should not be legal because it violates a person's right to life.

I'm not saying that is or is not my own view, I'm just saying that you framing this as a religious vs. non-religious argument is flawed. The more people that are willing to hear things that don't fit their neatly organized political frames of reference, a more productive a debate will be had.

Instead, you are writing off anyone who is against legalized abortions as projecting their religious views into legislation - which although often true, is absolutely not always the case.

Uh, you're the one ignoring him actually.


Wait- is this "concern trolling"? Have I been "concern trolled"?

Both sides totally have legitimate arguments
Can you provide some examples
Stop writing everybody off, both sides have legitimate arguments
Citation plz
I'm not saying I agree with it, but there is a legitimate argument
And the argument is?
crickets
 
2012-10-13 01:24:00 PM

Jorn the Younger: I'm not pro-abortion (nobody actually is, really) but I am anti-theocrat, and will always stand in opposition to tyrany.


I'm pro-abortion in many cases, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. Its lines like that - abortion apologist like you - are the reason why pro lifers keep gaining ground in the realm of public opinion. I'm not afraid to defend abortion itself. Abortion is not evil, Abortion is not wrong. Abortion is not murder. Its a medical procedure.

I'd like to see fathers have some rights on the abortion matter. While the decision should ultimately rest with the mother, the father should be able to request an abortion. No one should be forced into having an abortion(aside from in China where they really need to do that) - but if the father requests it and is willing to pay for it - the mother choosing to keep it waives all rights to child support. Its ridiculous that currently the father has no rights nor say at all in the matter - yet still is on the hook for decisions he can't make.
 
2012-10-13 01:34:12 PM
I have already stated and re-stated the non-religious argument numerous times. I'll do it again.
It's not a very complicated argument.

Person A, who is not religious, believes that humans are still, in fact, entitled to certain rights, the most important being the right to life.

Person A also believes that the beginning of a human life, and thus the starting point for entitlement to said rights, begins at the point where the male and female love juices have been sloshed together to the point that that a sperm has fertilized an egg and the human's development has actively begun.

Person A defines human life in more expansive terms than physically separated from the mother. Not because Jesus, but because the developing fetus has separate DNA, at some point develops its own organs, at some point has a heart beat, and at some point can feel pain.

Person A believes that all human life, regardless of what stage, deserves the protection of the law and deserves to have its human rights preserved - even if the human life is not mentally independent, and even if that human life is not cognizant of these rights.

Therefore, Person A, who absolutely hates all religions, thinks God is a lie, maybe even has a TF account, and who would relish the idea of banging Richard Dawkins in a mosque on top of a ripped up Bible while giving a Bhuddist monk the finger, believes that abortion should be illegal.

It might not be compelling to YOU, but that argument is at the very least, intellectually honest, based on scientific rationale, and completely outside the scope of religion.
 
2012-10-13 01:56:15 PM

plushpuppy: I wish people would stop saying pro-life most of these people believe in the death penalty(also, if you say why not kill it in the womb and skip the middle man, they do not see the humour in that statement) they are anti-abortionist and pro-life is a spin doctor term

/anyone who doesn't believe in abortion needs to be adopting children from the foster system, put your money where your mouth is


I have been saying for a while that private adoptions should not be a choice until the adopting parents have fostered at least 3 children in their home. I feel that if they want children, an infant shouldn't be the first choice. There are 3,4,5 year olds that are certainly viable options. It bothers me when I see people waiting for children but they don't see the children waiting for them (the foster care children).
 
2012-10-13 02:08:39 PM

bk3k: Jorn the Younger: I'm not pro-abortion (nobody actually is, really) but I am anti-theocrat, and will always stand in opposition to tyrany.

I'm pro-abortion in many cases, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. Its lines like that - abortion apologist like you - are the reason why pro lifers keep gaining ground in the realm of public opinion. I'm not afraid to defend abortion itself. Abortion is not evil, Abortion is not wrong. Abortion is not murder. Its a medical procedure.

I'd like to see fathers have some rights on the abortion matter. While the decision should ultimately rest with the mother, the father should be able to request an abortion. No one should be forced into having an abortion(aside from in China where they really need to do that) - but if the father requests it and is willing to pay for it - the mother choosing to keep it waives all rights to child support. Its ridiculous that currently the father has no rights nor say at all in the matter - yet still is on the hook for decisions he can't make.


You're right. My hyperbole was a little loose. I agree that abortion is not murder, and is not wrong. I had meant to convey that I do not, nor do I think does anyone else, think that an abortion is a wonderful experience, or something to be aspired to. It is absolutely a valid, and in many cases the right choice to make in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, and not something anyone should be looked down on for, or asked to apologize for.

Thank you for calling me on it, I will endevour to use better language in the future.

I do disagree on the "fathers rights" side of the issue. A father already has the right to request an abortion- he can ask the mother to get one. I've had this discussion before, and while I can kind of see where it comes from, it's not a point of view I can really sympathize or empathyze with too well. I've never been interested in casual sex, so on some level I don't really grasp the idea of impregnating a woman I'm not willing to father a child with. The conversation in the circumstance of an unwanted pregnancy is "What are we going to do?" not "What are you going to do?" because my sexual partner is just that- my partner. I'm not making a judgement on those who have a different mindset regarding sex and intimacy, just letting you know where I'm coming from.

I disagree with the "waive child support if the mother doesn't get the abortion the father requested" because that seems basically like "I want the law to say it's ok to be a deadbeat dad" and I don't think it's ok to be a deadbeat dad whether the law says it is or not. Fatherhood isn't just a financial obligation.

I don't think unwanted fatherhood is actually that prevalant of an issue, though I have seen it brought up in every Fark thread I've read on the topic of abortion, and honestly I think if abortion were destygmatized it would be even less of an issue, but that'll come hand in hand with improved sex education and stuff anyway, which will make those cases more rare as well.
 
2012-10-13 02:24:20 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: If I am ever raped and become pregnant as a result, I am listing Rick Berg as the father and then giving up all of my parental rights.


I like the cut of your jib. Fancy going for a drink somewhere?
 
2012-10-13 02:26:26 PM

daveUSMC: I have already stated and re-stated the non-religious argument numerous times. I'll do it again.
It's not a very complicated argument.

Person A, who is not religious, believes that humans are still, in fact, entitled to certain rights, the most important being the right to life.

Person A also believes that the beginning of a human life, and thus the starting point for entitlement to said rights, begins at the point where the male and female love juices have been sloshed together to the point that that a sperm has fertilized an egg and the human's development has actively begun.

Person A defines human life in more expansive terms than physically separated from the mother. Not because Jesus, but because the developing fetus has separate DNA, at some point develops its own organs, at some point has a heart beat, and at some point can feel pain.

Person A believes that all human life, regardless of what stage, deserves the protection of the law and deserves to have its human rights preserved - even if the human life is not mentally independent, and even if that human life is not cognizant of these rights.

Therefore, Person A, who absolutely hates all religions, thinks God is a lie, maybe even has a TF account, and who would relish the idea of banging Richard Dawkins in a mosque on top of a ripped up Bible while giving a Bhuddist monk the finger, believes that abortion should be illegal.

It might not be compelling to YOU, but that argument is at the very least, intellectually honest, based on scientific rationale, and completely outside the scope of religion.


But why does person A think that human life starts at conception? What science justifies that assertion?
You state that person A "believes" this to be true, but believes it why? And if they believe that full human rights are awarded immediately upon conception, do zygotes get to vote?

Now, I know you can't tell me why person A believes that, because you're not person A. That's because person A doesn't exist. Nobody is making that argument. You keep insisting that they are, but you're not actually making the argument (and refusing to do so by repeating that this is not your opinion, which prevents an actual argument from happening because that requires supporting evidence you cannot provide, and response to criticisms of that evidence, which you wouldn't give even if you provided evidence because it's not your argument.)

See, you haven't actually furnished the argument I'm asking you to- which is why I kept asking you for it. You've provided the framework that such an argument could follow, but that's pretty useless without someone to actually follow it, and provide evidence for their claims and engage in discourse about it. I can give you the framework for an argument that the moon is full of jellybeans, but without someone to actually make the argument, all we can do is sit here and laugh at the imaginary anti-religious homosexual TFer who is anti-abortion and thinks the moon is full of jellybeans.
 
2012-10-13 02:27:41 PM
Humans have the right not to have another human living inside them.
No person has the right to inhabit another oeron's body.
No person should be forced

daveUSMC: It might not be compelling to YOU, but that argument is at the very least, intellectually honest, based on scientific rationale, and completely outside the scope of religion.


The argument is not outside the scope of belief and subjective ideas about personhood though, and it requires the existence of a right for a person to inhabit another persons body. It also enables the state to force one person to sustain another person's life at the detriment of their own health, possibly incapacitating them for months and hurting their ability to earn a living, so the argument creates new rights while allowing the violation of others.
 
2012-10-13 02:28:32 PM
Dammit, edit fail.
 
2012-10-13 02:34:56 PM

Dansker: Humans have the right not to have another human living inside them.
No person has the right to inhabit another person's body.
No person should be forced daveUSMC: It might not be compelling to YOU, but that argument is at the very least, intellectually honest, based on scientific rationale, and completely outside the scope of religion.

The argument is not outside the scope of belief and subjective ideas about personhood though, and it requires the existence of a right for a person to inhabit another persons body. It also enables the state to force one person to sustain another person's life at the detriment of their own health, possibly incapacitating them for months and hurting their ability to earn a living, so the argument creates new rights while allowing the violation of others.


You are correct. Anti-abortionists would give a fetus rights that supercede the rights of the mother, who already is a person. There is no scientific justification for this.
 
2012-10-13 03:04:27 PM
Or adoption. Most states have Safe Harbor laws (well, the caring states do) you can drop off an infant at a firestation, hospital, church or other designated place with no questions asked and there is no responsibility to raise the child.
 
2012-10-13 03:14:21 PM

Dansker: Humans have the right not to have another human living inside them.
No person has the right to inhabit another oeron's body.
No person should be forced daveUSMC: It might not be compelling to YOU, but that argument is at the very least, intellectually honest, based on scientific rationale, and completely outside the scope of religion.

The argument is not outside the scope of belief and subjective ideas about personhood though, and it requires the existence of a right for a person to inhabit another persons body. It also enables the state to force one person to sustain another person's life at the detriment of their own health, possibly incapacitating them for months and hurting their ability to earn a living, so the argument creates new rights while allowing the violation of others.


There is no such right. The inconvenience of pregnancy would be weighed against the interest the other person. In fact, Roe v. Wade is exactly the opposite and said that after a fetus is viable (a person), the rights of the person far exceed the inconvenience of the remaining term. There is such a large duty to children that it is placed on nearly every person in society to protect them. You cannot even neglect children in your care, let alone kill them.

Such a view is very far-right extremist. It's individual rights taken to anarchy when duty to others is never weighed against the cost of exercising that right.
 
2012-10-13 03:24:58 PM

Chimperror2:

after a fetus is viable (a person),


So when is that, exactly? Does it depend on whether there is a NICU within a certain distance of the interested parties?

Does it depend on whether the fetus has health insurance? because without an expensive hospital stay, no preemie born at 5 months gestation is going to make it. Hell, without a NICU the vast majority of babies born at the 7month wouldn't make it.
 
2012-10-13 03:41:34 PM

Chimperror2:
There is no such right.


There is no right to occupy another persons body. Your right to life does not exceed my right to ownership of my self.

There is such a large duty to children that it is placed on nearly every person in society to protect them.

There is no duty to sustain their life with your own blood.
 
2012-10-13 04:17:13 PM
After serving his sentence does daddy get visitation?
 
2012-10-13 04:29:06 PM

Jorn the Younger: daveUSMC: I have already stated and re-stated the non-religious argument numerous times. I'll do it again.
It's not a very complicated argument.
...

But why does person A think that human life starts at conception? What science justifies that assertion?
You state that person A "believes" this to be true, but believes it why? And if they believe that full human rights are awarded immediately upon conception, do zygotes get to vote?

Now, I know you can't tell me why person A believes that, because you're not person A. That's because person A do ...


Well, I guess believing life to exist because of all of the things I listed about having its own set of DNA, and replicating on its own, etc does not satisfy your definition of Person A's scientific component of his argument. There's really no further to go down that road if you don't even consider the possibility that there is a reasonable basis for believing that biologically, a life has been created upon fertilization of an egg.

And to the other Farkers' points:

More non-religious arguments to counter:
1. The right to life of the zygote/blob/cell clump/ supersedes the right to health of the mother (not too convincing in many cases, I guess it depends on the definition of "health,"). Those rights are balanced when the life of the mother is reasonably jeopardized. In that case, it's a simultaneous catch. The mother's rights trump the fetus' due to Touchdown Seahawks, i.e. Tie goes to the Offensive team. (Bad joke, but it made me chuckle)

2. Inalienable human rights trump civil rights.

Just to clarify, my own position is really one of humbly acknowledging that I do NOT in fact know when life begins, so I can't really claim to be passionately for or against abortion on a national level. I guess I'd leave it legal on a national level and punt to the States to decide what restrictions, if any, are appropriate. It's really something I can't justify forcing on everyone else, because I just don't know. I would acquiesce more to the scientific crowd for some better benchmarks on when it is just too clear that it should be illegal, i.e. 3rd trimester, the thing is basically renting a house and paying bills inside there, just waiting to pop out.

Wow that was rambling. I hope that kind of made sense. I'm really farking tired.
 
2012-10-13 05:11:10 PM

Summoner101: So our laws are being challenged, argued, and ruled on in front of a judge(s) to determine their veracity under precedent and constitutionality? Excuse me while I quell my outrage.


Either the Hyde Amendment is as close to carved-in-stone as we're going to get ("The Hyde amendment has only been around for almost 30 years"), or it's being challenged and may one day not too far off be overturned. It can't be both.

And I'd imagine that the people arguing against the Hyde Amendment wouldn't would have principles that don't agree with your principles.

It would be principled if they honestly argued that, but where are there people arguing to straight-up overturn the Hyde Amendment these days? I've seen the occasional leftist congressmember talk a good game once in a while, but it's all talk - there's been no such legislation proposed in recent memory, putting aside the social conservative argument that Obamacare is a weaselly means to circumvent the amendment. Moving to repeal it legislatively would be political suicide in all but the most left-wing congressional districts. Like I said, principles go by the wayside when power is at stake. They went by the wayside when the amendment was passed in the first place, too, since the amendment contains the rape/incest exception, the logic for which amounts to "okay, that abortion we'll pay for because the alternatives are too much of a political pain in the ass to consider. Also, eww."
 
2012-10-13 05:14:11 PM

Gulper Eel: Either the Hyde Amendment is as close to carved-in-stone as we're going to get ("The Hyde amendment has only been around for almost 30 years"), or it's being challenged and may one day not too far off be overturned. It can't be both.


Now that I think of it, the amendment is attached to whatever pieces of funding legislation deal with women's reproductive issues, each time a bill like that comes up. There's nothing to actually repeal...it only need not be included in a bill, if I'm reading things right.
 
2012-10-13 05:26:29 PM

Coco LaFemme: This is what I don't understand about some of these pro-life assholes. They believe that a clump of cells that hasn't formed anything resembling a human being, is actually a human being, and killing it (abortion) should be illegal. However, once said clump of cells turns into a human being and is then born, they could give less than a 1/10th of a fark about he/she after that.

Are they trying to say that human beings are like cars, in that once you come screaming out of your mom's snatch, you begin to depreciate in value....like a car does once you drive it off the lot? The pre-born are infinitely more valuable and worthy than the already born, whether they're toddlers, soldiers, or the elderly?

I know this may sound like a stupid question, but where's the farking logic in that?


Hmm... This analogy actually works- These people think that just like a car, a person starts to depreciate at birth. Depreciation continues until the person is old (a classic) at which point they start to have some value again, so old people with a terminal illness can't choose to put themselves out of their misery, either.
 
2012-10-13 05:59:52 PM

dickfreckle: coco ebert: That is a CSB. Who the fark doesn't love Earth, Wind, & Fire, anyway?

I am the only known white boy who can recite the lyrics to every song in the entire EWF catalog (special editions...maybe).

Go ahead. Test me.

/has rhythm, too, which surprised my entire family
//Someday, I will relate the story


Hey, you're a NOLA boy, of course you got da funk! :D
 
2012-10-13 06:03:52 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: dickfreckle: The issue wasn't touched once in office.

It never is. It's just pandering to people too stupid to realize the fact.


Maybe not at the national level, but there have been shiatloads of restrictions passed in various state legislatures.
 
2012-10-13 06:05:12 PM

bk3k: .... I don't know who their Lord is - but it sure isn't Jesus.


QFT
 
2012-10-13 06:13:09 PM

Greek: Coco LaFemme: This is what I don't understand about some of these pro-life assholes. They believe that a clump of cells that hasn't formed anything resembling a human being, is actually a human being, and killing it (abortion) should be illegal. However, once said clump of cells turns into a human being and is then born, they could give less than a 1/10th of a fark about he/she after that.

Are they trying to say that human beings are like cars, in that once you come screaming out of your mom's snatch, you begin to depreciate in value....like a car does once you drive it off the lot? The pre-born are infinitely more valuable and worthy than the already born, whether they're toddlers, soldiers, or the elderly?

I know this may sound like a stupid question, but where's the farking logic in that?

Hmm... This analogy actually works- These people think that just like a car, a person starts to depreciate at birth. Depreciation continues until the person is old (a classic) at which point they start to have some value again, so old people with a terminal illness can't choose to put themselves out of their misery, either.


If we want to liken this to cars, pro-lifers would be arguing that a car is a car the moment the engineers started designing it.
 
2012-10-13 07:12:55 PM

Bonzo_1116: Chimperror2:

after a fetus is viable (a person),

So when is that, exactly? Does it depend on whether there is a NICU within a certain distance of the interested parties?

I don't claim to know when a person begins. I'm prone to give someone the benefit of the doubt though.


Dansker: Chimperror2:
There is no such right.

There is no right to occupy another persons body. Your right to life does not exceed my right to ownership of my self.

There is such a large duty to children that it is placed on nearly every person in society to protect them.

There is no duty to sustain their life with your own blood.


Why do you think that? People have a duty to serve in armed conflict and suffer wounds that bleed and that's a duty to society. Trumps their rights. Consent is not necessary when there is a draft either.

Also, let's say you are a live kidney donor and they just removed the other persons kidney. When do you think you can "opt out?" After a certain stage, you are committed.

Like I said,there are duties placed on us in a society, It is a very far right-wing position that individual rights exists beyond reasonable constraints. All rights are constrained somewhat to allow society to function. Pregnancy is a natural condition that has formed every person on the planet. Arguing that being in a natural condition for a time certain is an unbearable hardship, barring any other complication, is a losing argument.
 
2012-10-13 07:16:19 PM

Lionel Mandrake: What a dick. I will never fathom why a woman person who makes less than 7 figures would vote GOP.


FTFY
 
2012-10-13 07:55:30 PM

NewportBarGuy: Women, I'm sorry. I'd just like to inform you that if I'm on your jury when you end these people... You'll go free. It's all good. Do what you need to do. I completely understand.


As a woman, a sincere thanks. We need as many sane men as we can get speaking up.
 
2012-10-13 09:55:23 PM

NewportBarGuy: Women, I'm sorry. I'd just like to inform you that if I'm on your jury when you end these people... You'll go free. It's all good. Do what you need to do. I completely understand.


What about the woman that has a baby in the restroom of a sports stadium after a full term and then drowns him in the toilet? Is that close enough? I mean she probably hasn't passed all the placenta so she's still pregnant. amiright? Is that okay?

Okay, now that your over that. Where do you draw the line? What's okay and what's not okay?

What if she was trying to get pregnant and doesn't know if baby daddy is rapist or husbands? Doctor says safest for baby is not to get amnio. Do you give her a 1 retroactive abortion card because she have killed him at week 1 if she knew?

Funny that the baby gets the death penalty but rapist doesn't. More funny is that groups that oppose death penalty for low-life POS rapist, support it for baby. The best interview in the world would be "I'm grateful to rape victim mom for having the courage to keep me, I didn't know my dad because he was put to death."
 
2012-10-13 10:22:11 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: What the fark is wrong with these people?


I put it more on the half of the populace that supports these people. It doesn't excuse them for what they say, but people like this wouldn't have any real power without the mouthbreather segment cheering them on.
 
2012-10-13 11:02:20 PM

Chimperror2: NewportBarGuy: Women, I'm sorry. I'd just like to inform you that if I'm on your jury when you end these people... You'll go free. It's all good. Do what you need to do. I completely understand.

What about the woman that has a baby in the restroom of a sports stadium after a full term and then drowns him in the toilet? Is that close enough? I mean she probably hasn't passed all the placenta so she's still pregnant. amiright? Is that okay?

Okay, now that your over that. Where do you draw the line? What's okay and what's not okay?

What if she was trying to get pregnant and doesn't know if baby daddy is rapist or husbands? Doctor says safest for baby is not to get amnio. Do you give her a 1 retroactive abortion card because she have killed him at week 1 if she knew?

Funny that the baby gets the death penalty but rapist doesn't. More funny is that groups that oppose death penalty for low-life POS rapist, support it for baby. The best interview in the world would be "I'm grateful to rape victim mom for having the courage to keep me, I didn't know my dad because he was put to death."


Best interview in the world? Really? Wouldn't "My mother and father didn't get forced to have me before they were ready, my father wasn't a rapist, and I had two loving and supportive parents." be better?
 
2012-10-13 11:57:17 PM

Jorn the Younger: Chimperror2:

Funny that the baby gets the death penalty but rapist doesn't. More funny is that groups that oppose death penalty for low-life POS rapist, support it for baby. The best interview in the world would be "I'm grateful to rape victim mom for having the courage to keep me, I didn't know my dad because he was put to death."

Best interview in the world? Really? Wouldn't "My mother and father didn't get forced to have me before they were ready, my father wasn't a rapist, and I had two loving and supportive parents." be better?


I'm pretty sure your story is the pretty nuch the standard. There are "abortion survivor" stories of people that survived an abortion. I'd rather read about he woman who was pressured to have an abortion and chose not to.
 
2012-10-14 01:22:23 AM

daveUSMC: 2. Inalienable human rights trump civil rights.


Exactly. So are you saying that women are not eligible for having inalienable human rights, but fetuses are?
 
2012-10-14 01:24:39 AM
And if so, I hope to god you never have sex with anything, ever.
 
2012-10-14 01:44:18 AM

Chimperror2: Jorn the Younger: Chimperror2:

Funny that the baby gets the death penalty but rapist doesn't. More funny is that groups that oppose death penalty for low-life POS rapist, support it for baby. The best interview in the world would be "I'm grateful to rape victim mom for having the courage to keep me, I didn't know my dad because he was put to death."

Best interview in the world? Really? Wouldn't "My mother and father didn't get forced to have me before they were ready, my father wasn't a rapist, and I had two loving and supportive parents." be better?

I'm pretty sure your story is the pretty nuch the standard. There are "abortion survivor" stories of people that survived an abortion. I'd rather read about he woman who was pressured to have an abortion and chose not to.


You said "the best interview in the world" and I provided an example of a better one. Here are some more:

"Being the first human being to set foot on Mars was awesome. Like a million hot dogs."
"So I decided to channel my efforts to providing unlimited free energy to the world, and I succeeded."
"Which is how faster that light travel became a reality"
"And this is how I cured cancer:"
 
2012-10-14 02:56:09 AM

daveUSMC: I have already stated and re-stated the non-religious argument numerous times. I'll do it again.
It's not a very complicated argument.

Person A, who is not religious, believes that humans are still, in fact, entitled to certain rights, the most important being the right to life.

Person A also believes that the beginning of a human life, and thus the starting point for entitlement to said rights, begins at the point where the male and female love juices have been sloshed together to the point that that a sperm has fertilized an egg and the human's development has actively begun.

Person A defines human life in more expansive terms than physically separated from the mother. Not because Jesus, but because the developing fetus has separate DNA, at some point develops its own organs, at some point has a heart beat, and at some point can feel pain.

Person A believes that all human life, regardless of what stage, deserves the protection of the law and deserves to have its human rights preserved - even if the human life is not mentally independent, and even if that human life is not cognizant of these rights.

Therefore, Person A, who absolutely hates all religions, thinks God is a lie, maybe even has a TF account, and who would relish the idea of banging Richard Dawkins in a mosque on top of a ripped up Bible while giving a Bhuddist monk the finger, believes that abortion should be illegal.

It might not be compelling to YOU, but that argument is at the very least, intellectually honest, based on scientific rationale, and completely outside the scope of religion.


It's a fictional argument. No one makes it.
 
2012-10-14 05:20:32 AM

Alphax: daveUSMC: I have already stated and re-stated the non-religious argument numerous times. I'll do it again.
It's not a very complicated argument.

Person A, who is not religious, believes that humans are still, in fact, entitled to certain rights, the most important being the right to life.

Person A also believes that the beginning of a human life, and thus the starting point for entitlement to said rights, begins at the point where the male and female love juices have been sloshed together to the point that that a sperm has fertilized an egg and the human's development has actively begun.

Person A defines human life in more expansive terms than physically separated from the mother. Not because Jesus, but because the developing fetus has separate DNA, at some point develops its own organs, at some point has a heart beat, and at some point can feel pain.

Person A believes that all human life, regardless of what stage, deserves the protection of the law and deserves to have its human rights preserved - even if the human life is not mentally independent, and even if that human life is not cognizant of these rights.

Therefore, Person A, who absolutely hates all religions, thinks God is a lie, maybe even has a TF account, and who would relish the idea of banging Richard Dawkins in a mosque on top of a ripped up Bible while giving a Bhuddist monk the finger, believes that abortion should be illegal.

It might not be compelling to YOU, but that argument is at the very least, intellectually honest, based on scientific rationale, and completely outside the scope of religion.

It's a fictional argument. No one makes it.


People make it all the time. TFers kill kittens for Richard Dawkins. It's their favorite South Park, You are correct though, that TFers rarely stand up for those that can't speak for themselves.

Actually the argument that Person A has to believe in a point where life begins is a fallacy. Simply not knowing where life begins but giving them the benefit of the doubt is a better argument. Not giving them the benefit of the doubt led to things like 3/5's compromise and all sorts of lovely arguments.

"no your honor, I didn't think it could possibly be a person when I sucked it's brain through a straw and evacuated the rest her uterus. 2o weeks is just a mass of proptoplasm. 3/5's a person."

Nice.
 
2012-10-14 11:38:16 AM
Men need to STFU and MYOB on this issue. They have no right to make a decision for women.
 
2012-10-14 01:29:01 PM

AbbeySomeone: Men need to STFU and MYOB on this issue. They have no right to make a decision for women.


It's not a decision.

Do you feel the same way about wife-beaters?
 
2012-10-14 07:19:30 PM

bk3k: There is a study that shows Atheists overwhelmingly support abortion.


In the sense of "as a legally available choice"; and, on generic "any reason" abortion, marginally less than Agnostics and Deists do (all about 2:1). Doubters tend to be split more evenly (3:2 or 1:1), while those claiming to be certain of God's existence lean opposite (7:3).

(Woohoo! Berkeley SDA has the GSS back up.)

daveUSMC: The "correct" answer just hinges on whether or not it is a human life


Pedantically: to what degree is it a person, what rights associate to that degree of personhood, and how do those rights balance against other persons' rights?

And, since "rights" are an ought-based concept, such answer indeed depends in turn on what bridge you use to cross the is-ought divide, as well as potentially what ladder you use to climb from experience to induction of "is".
 
2012-10-15 08:30:59 AM

Lionel Mandrake: What a dick. I will never fathom why a woman would vote GOP.


Because modern feminism fails to acknowledge that their number one adversary is not men, we'll do whatever makes us more successful at getting in your pants. But here's the thing- being a complete asshole does not affect a man's ability to get laid. Women choose to sleep with assholes quite often. Hell, there are dating sites for women to chat with men who are in PRISON. The women who do that and the women who vote how their men tell them to vote are your true adversaries, not us. As soon as being an asshole removes a man's ability to date and get laid, some problems will finally start sorting themselves out.
 
Displayed 247 of 247 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report