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  
•       •       •

4094 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Oct 2012 at 11:00 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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"
 
Displayed 50 of 247 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report