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 82
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-12 08:47:50 PM
11 votes:

AdolfOliverPanties: What the fark is wrong with these people?


Religion.
2012-10-12 10:09:00 PM
8 votes:
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 09:59:24 PM
7 votes:
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?
2012-10-13 03:47:46 AM
5 votes:
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 12:35:05 AM
5 votes:
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
2012-10-12 07:33:04 PM
5 votes:
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 11:29:33 PM
4 votes:
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 11:28:11 PM
4 votes:
It's a choice not a child.
2012-10-12 11:11:28 PM
4 votes:

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 09:43:10 PM
4 votes:
"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 08:55:15 PM
4 votes:
What a dick. I will never fathom why a woman would vote GOP.
2012-10-13 08:25:04 AM
3 votes:

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 12:58:13 AM
3 votes:

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
2012-10-12 11:24:36 PM
3 votes:

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 10:06:23 PM
3 votes:

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 09:43:19 PM
3 votes:

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 09:13:33 PM
3 votes:

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 08:55:37 PM
3 votes:

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


Because their man tells them to.
2012-10-12 08:33:24 PM
3 votes:
What the fark is wrong with these people?
2012-10-13 11:02:20 PM
2 votes:

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 01:07:31 AM
2 votes:

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 12:04:13 AM
2 votes:

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.
2012-10-12 11:34:14 PM
2 votes:
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 11:06:40 PM
2 votes:
Say hello to today's GOP, the American Taliban TM
2012-10-12 10:41:14 PM
2 votes:
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 10:18:52 PM
2 votes:
Lobbing a few bombs that kill a few hundred million children? that about right. But kill a zygote? That's murder!
2012-10-12 10:03:59 PM
2 votes:
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 10:02:38 PM
2 votes:
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 09:49:03 PM
2 votes:

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 09:35:20 PM
2 votes:

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 09:13:16 PM
2 votes:

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 08:55:00 PM
2 votes:
Keep talking.
2012-10-15 08:30:59 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-10-13 03:41:34 PM
1 votes:

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 03:24:58 PM
1 votes:

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 02:34:56 PM
1 votes:

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 02:26:26 PM
1 votes:

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 02:08:39 PM
1 votes:

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 01:18:21 PM
1 votes:

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 01:08:57 PM
1 votes:

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 12:59:20 PM
1 votes:

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 12:23:39 PM
1 votes:
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 11:25:41 AM
1 votes:

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 11:08:24 AM
1 votes:

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


I prefer the five Rs - Religion, Rape, Republicanism, Racism and Rape.
2012-10-13 09:59:05 AM
1 votes:
i75.photobucket.com

Not that weird a conclusion, just more obviously wrong.
2012-10-13 09:53:36 AM
1 votes:
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 09:50:45 AM
1 votes:
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 09:49:07 AM
1 votes:

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 08:27:48 AM
1 votes:

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 06:53:25 AM
1 votes:

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 05:26:46 AM
1 votes:

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 04:45:12 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-10-13 04:18:02 AM
1 votes:

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 04:09:27 AM
1 votes:

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 04:08:09 AM
1 votes:

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 02:57:01 AM
1 votes:
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 02:26:08 AM
1 votes:

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 01:28:17 AM
1 votes:
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 01:22:49 AM
1 votes:

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 01:03:53 AM
1 votes:
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 12:36:31 AM
1 votes:

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 12:24:35 AM
1 votes:
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 12:19:32 AM
1 votes:
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.
2012-10-12 11:58:50 PM
1 votes:

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 11:43:07 PM
1 votes:
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 11:38:38 PM
1 votes:
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 11:32:32 PM
1 votes:
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 11:31:13 PM
1 votes:

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 11:30:47 PM
1 votes:
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 11:28:05 PM
1 votes:

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 11:28:04 PM
1 votes:

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?
NFA [TotalFark]
2012-10-12 11:24:32 PM
1 votes:

GOP

Get the government off the backs of big business

Get the government into the lives of all women.
2012-10-12 11:19:42 PM
1 votes:

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 11:17:31 PM
1 votes:

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 11:17:11 PM
1 votes:
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 11:09:56 PM
1 votes:
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 09:45:52 PM
1 votes:
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 09:40:41 PM
1 votes:

AdolfOliverPanties: What the fark is wrong with these people?


Christian family values.
2012-10-12 08:58:23 PM
1 votes:
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 08:56:25 PM
1 votes:

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 08:46:57 PM
1 votes:
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 08:15:31 PM
1 votes:
And you'd rather there be two victims? Asshole.
 
Displayed 82 of 82 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report