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.

(Jezebel)   Oh FFS I guess it's not possible to expect the GOP to just leave the whole topic of rape alone for one freaking day. Paul Ryan (R)apeublican wants to make sure rapists have the right to sue the raped mothers of their rape babies for custody. Rape   (jezebel.com) divider line 356
    More: Followup, GOP, party system, rapists, baby  
•       •       •

7631 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Jan 2013 at 10:47 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-13 02:12:30 AM

JadedRaverLA: Fart_Machine: clowncar on fire: Fart_Machine: clowncar on fire: Contrary to popular belief, not all women are exactly the brightest stewards of their bodies

So it's best that someone mansplain things that they should serve as a forced incubator for nine months.

Not what I said- thoough that's probably how'd you you prefer to hear it. The alternative would be to accept the fact that some people are just too stupid not to be able to prevent an unwanted pregnancy (both partners), and that some people make hasty decisions without thinking things out. In the end, should a woman choose not to carry the child to full term for whatever reasons, then yes the law should respect that decision, but only after other options are explored.

If the bill allows for the biological father to sue to stop the abortion what do you think happens if he wins?

Absolutely nothing. At least immediately. A state court cannot order every single doctor in A DIFFERENT STATE to not perform a legal procedure in that other state.

Now, in that hypothetical, after the fetus was aborted (outside of the court's jurisdiction), the judge could find the woman to be in contempt of court (for failing to follow court orders), but at that point,as Shakespeare said, "What's done, is done."


So essentially this is a stupid bill that will blow away at the first legal challenge.
 
2013-01-13 02:23:36 AM

quickdraw: clowncar on fire: Oh for the love of God, would someone please explain to me why this is pro-rapist

clowncar on fire: Unfortunately, rapists occasionally impregnate their victims and are granted coverage under this law is well.

Looks like you did a great job of answering your own question. How efficient of you.


The bill, as written, would apply to all daddy-to-be's regardless of how they put that baby there. That does not make it a pro- anything other than granting a biological dad to be some say bill. I would not expect that the court would give much weight to a rapist seeking an injunction as much as a spouse or common law partner.

But if the only way you can distort the intent is by insisting that only rapists would be the only ones to benefit from this bill then rant on....
 
2013-01-13 02:26:58 AM
IANAL. So can anyone explain to me how a law that "would give states the right to ban all abortion" could be constitutional in light of Roe v Wade?
 
2013-01-13 02:29:41 AM
MmmmBacon: Thank you, Ryan, for killing any chance you might have had of winning the Presidency in 2016. You have almost single-handedly given the Presidency to the Democrats until at least 2020, if not 2024, and for that I again thank you. Oh, and way to learn from the arse-kicking the GOP took in November 2012, Sir.

What a crazy bastard!


Yes Paul, thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.

And say hi to your buddy Phil Gingrey and pass our gratitude along as well. With guys like you, there is little need for anyone to prove the GOP is in a fog bank and flying blind in the mountains. Or maybe it is a train wreck we all know is going to happen but really don't care if it does.. Good times, good times.
 
2013-01-13 02:31:40 AM
I've gotten a girl pregnant and she decided to abort on her own. I was very supportive of her decision, (smart move!) but I would never have pretended I had the same rights over her own body as me, just because I put my dick in her.

That's a pretty selfish way of thinking.  It's HER body, not yours. If SHE doesn't want the damn thing in her, than that's HER choice, not yours. That's called morality.
 
2013-01-13 02:32:33 AM

phuquetarde: A message from the Republican Party

RAPE! GUNS! RAPE! GUNNNNS! BORTIONS! GUNS! BIRF CERTIFICUT!! GUNNNNNNNSSSSS!!!!!! *pant* *pant* *pant* OH LORDY JEBUS I LOVE GUNNNNNSSSS AND RAPE AND GUNNNNSSSSSS!!!! RAPE! MOOCHERS! MOCHERCLASS! MOOCHER SOCIETY! MOOCHER GUN JEBUS CLASS BORTIONS RAAAAAPPPPPEEE!!! DAY TERK ERRRR GUNNNNZZZZZ! OH GIMME MORE GUNS! GUNS! FER RAPIN' AND MAKIN' RAPE BABIES FOR MORE BORTIONS GUNNNNNSSSSS!!!!!!

This has been a message from the Republican Party.

GUNNNNNNSSSS!


This was posted on FB today:

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net

I'm stocking up on abortions, just in case.
 
2013-01-13 02:32:35 AM
No man has any right to tell a woman to bear a child.

It's as simple as that.

DEAL WITH IT.
 
2013-01-13 02:34:11 AM

clowncar on fire: quickdraw: clowncar on fire: Oh for the love of God, would someone please explain to me why this is pro-rapist

clowncar on fire: Unfortunately, rapists occasionally impregnate their victims and are granted coverage under this law is well.

Looks like you did a great job of answering your own question. How efficient of you.

The bill, as written, would apply to all daddy-to-be's regardless of how they put that baby there. That does not make it a pro- anything other than granting a biological dad to be some say bill. I would not expect that the court would give much weight to a rapist seeking an injunction as much as a spouse or common law partner.

But if the only way you can distort the intent is by insisting that only rapists would be the only ones to benefit from this bill then rant on....


Biological dads should have zero say over the decision of the woman bearing the child.

That is just being decent. Do you think you owned her body when you got your moves on?
 
2013-01-13 02:36:21 AM
You can pry my abortion from my cold, dead hand.
 
2013-01-13 02:36:40 AM
Men act like it's so hard to make a baby on their end.
 
2013-01-13 02:37:01 AM
this might not be such a problem for him

ages ago they found that most of the ladies getting an abortion thought it should be illeagal for everyone else
(but that they themselves had special situation)

so - cognitive disconnect is a go at this station
positive votes generated
 
2013-01-13 02:39:37 AM
If a man and woman have sex andwind up pregnant it is unfair to one of them if the other gets to decide yea or nay on the abortion.

Given that, the person with more to lose should get the say.

Beyond that we don't need end-runs around roe v wade.

Finally, clowncars are ridiculous.
 
2013-01-13 02:42:09 AM

Confabulat: No man has any right to tell a woman to bear a child.

It's as simple as that.

DEAL WITH IT.


This hurts but... I agree with you 100%.

But, does that man- maybe not a rapist but a common law partner or husband-- have a right to at least have his side of the matter be heard? I am hoping this bill would not block a termination but could delay it long enough for all options to be layed out a "time out" period as it were?

I would think anyone who sought this course of action may be serious about being a father and could be accountable to the court for failing to do so should the woman change her mind?
 
2013-01-13 02:44:49 AM

clowncar on fire: I will agree with you on the intrusiveness that the legal system has taken with women's health issues though. I'm hoping for a best case scenario where- if time permitting-- the biological father to be could at least offer options to an abortion but that would only be in situations where time permitted. I believe there may be circumstances where the woman may not be aware of all of her options or that by presenting these options in a legal environment, the father would be compelled legally to care for his child other than by just offering hollow promises. So yeah, I imagine only someone who is serious enough about wanting a father would seek this route, and in the eyes of the mother, may be offering a real alternative option to the mother other than lipservice.


That's just because you're a decent person who expects others to be decent people. There are, excluding the rape scenario, only four permutations for an unwanted or unintended pregnancy:
Both parents agree they want the child
Both parents agree they do not want the child
The mother wants the child but the father does not
The father wants the child but the mother does not

Unfortunately, in every single sense of the word, the latter scenario is the most uncommon; and if or when it does become an issue, it's almost never in the context of abortion, but in the context of adoption--usually because daddy doesn't want mommy's new husband to legally adopt the kid. I understand what you are thinking of--that a woman who thinks she has no economic or social option but to abort her baby might change her mind if the father were to contest the abortion--but realistically speaking, any man who cared enough about her and the baby would ALREADY have made that commitment, he wouldn't have waited till he learned she was contemplating abortion and then gone to court to prevent her from doing so.

If the father and mother have enough of a relationship that he can say "Don't get an abortion, I'll take care of the kid," then there's no need for him to go to court to enforce it; and if she's such a biatch that she'd say "No, I'm getting one anyway because screw you," then chances are he'd never even know she was pregnant to begin with. So if the law is to require a biatch to notify her baby-daddy before she gets that abortion....then you run into the time issue I mentioned already.

Of course, the other issue is when a woman is pregnant by someone she is afraid to notify--an abusive boyfriend or jealous husband--and that raises another problem of whether her right (and the baby's!) right to safety trump his right to notice.
 
2013-01-13 02:45:40 AM

Skyrmion: IANAL. So can anyone explain to me how a law that "would give states the right to ban all abortion" could be constitutional in light of Roe v Wade?


It's patently unconstitutional, but it could still stand on the books for years while challenges wind their way through the courts.
 
2013-01-13 02:48:43 AM

rynthetyn: Skyrmion: IANAL. So can anyone explain to me how a law that "would give states the right to ban all abortion" could be constitutional in light of Roe v Wade?

It's patently unconstitutional, but it could still stand on the books for years while challenges wind their way through the courts.


Especially if Bush appointees from Regent University hear the case..
 
2013-01-13 02:49:00 AM

clowncar on fire: Confabulat: No man has any right to tell a woman to bear a child.

It's as simple as that.

DEAL WITH IT.

This hurts but... I agree with you 100%.

But, does that man- maybe not a rapist but a common law partner or husband-- have a right to at least have his side of the matter be heard? I am hoping this bill would not block a termination but could delay it long enough for all options to be layed out a "time out" period as it were?

I would think anyone who sought this course of action may be serious about being a father and could be accountable to the court for failing to do so should the woman change her mind?


Guy A doesn't like what guy B is going to do. Guy B is doing something legal and guy A has no legal right to stop him.

Should guy A have a day in court to be heard, even acknowledging that nothing he can say or do will allow the court to order guy B to stop his actions?

I would say no. You appear to be saying yes. Why?
 
2013-01-13 02:50:02 AM

Smackledorfer: If a man and woman have sex andwind up pregnant it is unfair to one of them if the other gets to decide yea or nay on the abortion.

Given that, the person with more to lose should get the say.

Beyond that we don't need end-runs around roe v wade.

Finally, clowncars are ridiculous.


I agree- that's why it should be a mutual decision if the father is truly earnest about being a father. But yes, in the end, a woman has more skin in the game should the child come to full term and by all rights, should get the final say.
 
2013-01-13 02:51:44 AM

clowncar on fire: Confabulat: No man has any right to tell a woman to bear a child.

It's as simple as that.

DEAL WITH IT.

This hurts but... I agree with you 100%.

But, does that man- maybe not a rapist but a common law partner or husband-- have a right to at least have his side of the matter be heard? I am hoping this bill would not block a termination but could delay it long enough for all options to be layed out a "time out" period as it were?

I would think anyone who sought this course of action may be serious about being a father and could be accountable to the court for failing to do so should the woman change her mind?


My argument in this would be that any man and woman who are trying to make a family should be able to have this dialogue on their own. No government intervention should be required or necessary.

If it takes a court order for the man to be able to raise his points to the woman, this is all doomed anyway.
 
2013-01-13 02:53:26 AM
And guys can always make a new baby. If you made one, go make another. Big deal, you'll have fun.
 
2013-01-13 02:56:41 AM
And if the guy and woman aren't friends anymore and don't want to be together anymore but he still expects her to incubate his child for most of a year so he can have it because it's "his?"

Go to hell, asshole. People like that sort are the worst of the worst.
 
2013-01-13 03:00:47 AM

rynthetyn: Skyrmion: IANAL. So can anyone explain to me how a law that "would give states the right to ban all abortion" could be constitutional in light of Roe v Wade?

It's patently unconstitutional, but it could still stand on the books for years while challenges wind their way through the courts.


I was afraid that might be it but I was trying not to be that cynical.
 
2013-01-13 03:07:32 AM

Smackledorfer: clowncar on fire: Confabulat: No man has any right to tell a woman to bear a child.

It's as simple as that.

DEAL WITH IT.

This hurts but... I agree with you 100%.

But, does that man- maybe not a rapist but a common law partner or husband-- have a right to at least have his side of the matter be heard? I am hoping this bill would not block a termination but could delay it long enough for all options to be layed out a "time out" period as it were?

I would think anyone who sought this course of action may be serious about being a father and could be accountable to the court for failing to do so should the woman change her mind?

Guy A doesn't like what guy B is going to do. Guy B is doing something legal and guy A has no legal right to stop him.

Should guy A have a day in court to be heard, even acknowledging that nothing he can say or do will allow the court to order guy B to stop his actions?

I would say no. You appear to be saying yes. Why?


It's called voting- we do it all the time.

but back to the guy thing...

If Guy B's actions- despite their legality-- somehow effected the quality of Guy A's life or had initially been the results of A and B's mutual partnership-- then yes, a day in court would be appropriate.
Stuff like this happens all the time- Guy A likes to collect guns- Guy B feels threatened enough to want his day in court. Guy B likes strip clubs, Guy A petitions to close it down despite the legality.

In the case of partnering up to make a child, or the result of sex from two consenting adults (especially in a legally binding relationship where the intent was to produce a child), I would think that the voice of both partners should be at least heard. Should the woman be compelled to have that child- definitely not. But should the woman choose to subvert what may have been a mutual decision by both parties, there should be a forum in which both parties at least have their say- even if it means a temporary injunction on the abortion.
 
2013-01-13 03:08:10 AM
last I checked the country has an issue with fathers not wanting to acknowledge it's their kids.
 
2013-01-13 03:08:33 AM
I wonder if any of these guys even read any of the bills that their puppet masters tell them to support. I bet they don't even know what they attached their name to until the media brings it up.
 
2013-01-13 03:10:27 AM

ongbok: I wonder if any of these guys even read any of the bills that their puppet masters tell them to support. I bet they don't even know what they attached their name to until the media brings it up.


are you kidding? they know what's in it, and they don't just agree with it, they strongly agree with it.
 
2013-01-13 03:14:42 AM

clowncar on fire: The bill, as written, would apply to all daddy-to-be's regardless of how they put that baby there. That does not make it a pro- anything other than granting a biological dad to be some say bill. I would not expect that the court would give much weight to a rapist seeking an injunction as much as a spouse or common law partner.

But if the only way you can distort the intent is by insisting that only rapists would be the only ones to benefit from this bill then rant on....


Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
 
2013-01-13 03:16:14 AM
A message from the Republican Party

RAPE! GUNS! RAPE! GUNNNNS! BORTIONS! GUNS! BIRF CERTIFICUT!! GUNNNNNNNSSSSS!!!!!! *pant* *pant* *pant* OH LORDY JEBUS I LOVE GUNNNNNSSSS AND RAPE AND GUNNNNSSSSSS!!!! RAPE! MOOCHERS! MOCHERCLASS! MOOCHER SOCIETY! MOOCHER GUN JEBUS CLASS BORTIONS RAAAAAPPPPPEEE!!! DAY TERK ERRRR GUNNNNZZZZZ! OH GIMME MORE GUNS! GUNS! FER RAPIN' AND MAKIN' RAPE BABIES FOR MORE BORTIONS GUNNNNNSSSSS!!!!!!

This has been a message from the Republican Party.

GUNNNNNNSSSS!



It's... It's... It's just so beautiful...
 
2013-01-13 03:17:08 AM

serpent_sky: How absolutely sick and demented do you have to be to not only think about how you can protect the "rights" of rapists, but to share that thought with other people?


I was trying to figure out what the hell these guys are thinking in that weird time leading up to the election when they just wouldn't let the topic die, and you could tell, just from the way they were talking about it that they knew that there are taboos on rape, such that they must preface what they say with that boilerplate "of course I think rape is a terrible, horrible thing" right before they state their beliefs. They had to say this not because it's what they believe, but because they know they'll catch hell if they don't.

And I think this is what it comes down to: I, like most everyone, have a basic moral code. I don't do things that will cause harm or danger or misery to other individuals. It's not a set of rules that I read somewhere, and I adhere to it because transgressions would feel wrong; would leave me with guilt. I don't adhere to it because I know that I'll be punished if I don't. Now the constant with all these men talking about rape is, of course, their religion. If you were to ask Akin, Mourdock and now Paul where their moral code comes from, they would invariably and without hesitation tell you "the Bible". Their moral code, unlike mine, is written down, and they can reference it for you. They believe not just that their personal moral codes, but the law of the land as well, are based on and should continue to be based on the Bible.

But the Bible doesn't really portray rape as that big a deal. The Old Testament has some rules about it, but they're not really set up to benefit the victim; the victim is treated more like property. If the woman isn't married, the rapist has to pay the victim's father and then marry the victim. If she is married, they both get the death penalty unless she can prove that she called for help.

So if your moral code, your concept of right and wrong starts and ends with the Bible, you probably rank rape somewhere between shoplifting and slapping a baby. And you're likely to put your foot in your mouth when asked about it, because, no matter how awesome you think the Bible is, those of us reading it with objectivity have known for a long time that it's actually a pretty bad basis for law if you're not a heterosexual male member of a brone-age tribal desert community.
 
2013-01-13 03:22:23 AM

flux: no matter how awesome you think the Bible is, those of us reading it with objectivity have known for a long time that it's actually a pretty bad basis for law if you're not a heterosexual male member of a brone-age tribal desert community.


You could have just stopped there.
 
2013-01-13 03:25:45 AM

quickdraw: I really never understood the phrase "punchable face" until I saw Paul Ryan.


Really?

i48.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-13 03:29:22 AM

Frank N Stein:
Do you do anything besides hate Republicans?


Judging from previous conversations I've had with him, you could have skipped the last two words.
/he doesn't work because people pay him to go to school
 
2013-01-13 03:29:55 AM
Yay, more legislation designed specifically to run out the clock on a woman's window of abortion. Just what we need!

/sarcasm
 
2013-01-13 03:31:47 AM

log_jammin: last I checked the country has an issue with fathers not wanting to acknowledge it's their kids.


this is only a GOP end run attempt on the abortion issue, yet again.
it is a bit creepy.

The GOP biatches when the left tries to get around the 2nd amendment, but then pulls this shiat to get around SCOTUS ruling.

Girls, you cant have it both ways.
 
2013-01-13 03:33:13 AM

Sgt Otter: quickdraw: MmmmBacon: Thank you, Ryan, for killing any chance you might have had of winning the Presidency in 2016. You have almost single-handedly given the Presidency to the Democrats until at least 2020, if not 2024, and for that I again thank you. Oh, and way to learn from the arse-kicking the GOP took in November 2012, Sir.

What a crazy bastard!

I really never understood the phrase "punchable face" until I saw Paul Ryan.

You don't even need a phrase. The Germans have a single word, "backpfeifengesicht." Which basically translates into "a face badly in need of a fist."


And to think, I wouldn't know that if it wasn't for Cracked..
 
2013-01-13 03:39:28 AM

serpent_sky: I honestly cannot wrap my brain around how anyone, anywhere, could come out with stances that are pro-rape or defend rapists in any way, shape or form.  How the flying fark did this ever become the norm for the GOP?


Because the President's black.
 
2013-01-13 03:40:33 AM
Bucky Katt

Ryan's bill would also require that there is a criminal investigation every time a woman has a miscarriage.

The guy is a real dirtbag.


There have been bills introduced in both Georgia and Virginia State Legislatures that would require the reporting of miscarriages to local law enforcement and/or prove the miscarriage was `natural'. Those didn't pass. But, like Ryan & Company, they'll keep trying.

/Such great campaign fodder
//keep baling it up, boys
 
2013-01-13 03:41:46 AM

clowncar on fire: a woman cannot and should never be be compelled to have a child if she chooses not to. Kind of a sick society if women were to become involuntary breeding machines


I agree with the radical theologian Mary Daly who once poignantly wrote that forcing fertility on women is morally equivalent to forcing sterility on them. If you can make her do one, you can make her do the other. Seems better to me to focus on ways to keep abortion safer, legal and more and more rare at the same time. Years ago my wife needed a D&X to remove an anencephalic fetus that had no brain but was threatening to perforate her uterus but she had to instead be induced to deliver because of the "partial-birth abortion ban"--which has no exception for the health/life of the mother--and then had to have a D&C afterwards because the placenta wouldn't detach and she couldn't stop bleeding. Of all the things you shouldn't force a woman to ever do--forcing her to deliver a brainless baby when she doesn't have to or medically shouldn't has got to be farking up there somewhere.
 
2013-01-13 03:46:48 AM

Sgt Otter: quickdraw: MmmmBacon: Thank you, Ryan, for killing any chance you might have had of winning the Presidency in 2016. You have almost single-handedly given the Presidency to the Democrats until at least 2020, if not 2024, and for that I again thank you. Oh, and way to learn from the arse-kicking the GOP took in November 2012, Sir.

What a crazy bastard!

I really never understood the phrase "punchable face" until I saw Paul Ryan.

You don't even need a phrase. The Germans have a single word, "backpfeifengesicht." Which basically translates into "a face badly in need of a fist."


Great word. My immediate reaction to this guy was a desire to punch him in the face. This latest bullsh*t against women makes me want to add a swift knee to the junk.
 
2013-01-13 04:46:37 AM

clowncar on fire: Oh for the love of God, would someone please explain to me why this is pro-rapist and not pro biological father to be who may, in a very small percentage of the cases, happened to be a "father" as a result of having raped someone? This bill is about giving both parties a chance to have their say in an abortion.


1. If you honestly believe that the true reason for this bill is to give "Baby-daddies" parental rights, and that it's not just another attempt by the anti-woman lobby to limbo under that ever-pesky Constitution, then I have a bridge to sell you. A bridge that comes with its own fleet of alien space ships. And one of the space ships contains a tyrannosaurus with a saddle and a laser cannon. And the tyrannosaurus shiats pure cocaine on Friday nights.

2. Men should not be allowed to override women's reproductive choices regardless of anything, ever, but has this hypothetical "The man is not a deadbeat and he wants to raise his child, but the woman wants to abort" situation ever happened outside of domestic abuse situations and the over-active derpmaginations of Republicans?

/Of course, you're just deflecting because "Republicans good, Dems bad," even if the Republicans are morally indefensible.
//Trust me, they are morally indefensible.
 
2013-01-13 04:58:15 AM

Fart_Machine: JadedRaverLA: Fart_Machine: clowncar on fire: Fart_Machine: clowncar on fire: Contrary to popular belief, not all women are exactly the brightest stewards of their bodies

So it's best that someone mansplain things that they should serve as a forced incubator for nine months.

Not what I said- thoough that's probably how'd you you prefer to hear it. The alternative would be to accept the fact that some people are just too stupid not to be able to prevent an unwanted pregnancy (both partners), and that some people make hasty decisions without thinking things out. In the end, should a woman choose not to carry the child to full term for whatever reasons, then yes the law should respect that decision, but only after other options are explored.

If the bill allows for the biological father to sue to stop the abortion what do you think happens if he wins?

Absolutely nothing. At least immediately. A state court cannot order every single doctor in A DIFFERENT STATE to not perform a legal procedure in that other state.

Now, in that hypothetical, after the fetus was aborted (outside of the court's jurisdiction), the judge could find the woman to be in contempt of court (for failing to follow court orders), but at that point,as Shakespeare said, "What's done, is done."

So essentially this is a stupid bill that will blow away at the first legal challenge.


Stupid bill.... absolutely!

Blow away at the first legal challenge... hopefully.

My point is that one state can't prevent something from happening in another state. The BIG issue in all of this is that in civil court (if both people reside in the first state), it is very conceivable that the first state will take action against the woman in this hypothetical situation.

As far as I am concerned, this isn't an accident. The entire goal of the state in this case, much like the existing situation with welfare and unemployment benefits, is to get "undesirables" to relocate to "liberal" states, and become a drain on their economy. While many "liberal" states make it fairly easy to qualify for benefits, many "conservative" states make it next to impossible. Although the bulk of the money (regardless of state) comes from the federal government, sending those who haven't pulled themselves up by their bootstraps to another state is a fantastic way to minimize state expenditures and allow you to create the Tea Party utopia of insanely low taxes and no government services that seems to be the current goal of conservative thinkers.

Again, the end result is to make life harder for anyone who isn't a white Christian male, and to make them reconsider their decision to reside in your state. While it is sometimes said that socialism requires every other country to move to the same economic model in order to be truly successful, the current right-wing philosophy requires nearby states or countries to have an opposing model, in order to deal with the huge number of emigrants you send their way, desperately in need of social services you are unwilling to provide.
 
2013-01-13 05:06:02 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: clowncar on fire: Oh for the love of God, would someone please explain to me why this is pro-rapist and not pro biological father to be who may, in a very small percentage of the cases, happened to be a "father" as a result of having raped someone? This bill is about giving both parties a chance to have their say in an abortion.

1. If you honestly believe that the true reason for this bill is to give "Baby-daddies" parental rights, and that it's not just another attempt by the anti-woman lobby to limbo under that ever-pesky Constitution, then I have a bridge to sell you. A bridge that comes with its own fleet of alien space ships. And one of the space ships contains a tyrannosaurus with a saddle and a laser cannon. And the tyrannosaurus shiats pure cocaine on Friday nights.

2. Men should not be allowed to override women's reproductive choices regardless of anything, ever, but has this hypothetical "The man is not a deadbeat and he wants to raise his child, but the woman wants to abort" situation ever happened outside of domestic abuse situations and the over-active derpmaginations of Republicans?

/Of course, you're just deflecting because "Republicans good, Dems bad," even if the Republicans are morally indefensible.
//Trust me, they are morally indefensible.


Not to mention the fact that if Planned Parenthood v. Casey found Pennsylvania's spousal notification provision to be an unconstitutional barrier to abortion, there's no way that it's constitutional to allow the baby-daddy to completely overrule a woman's decision.
 
2013-01-13 05:22:52 AM

flux: If the woman isn't married, the rapist has to pay the victim's father and then marry the victim.


What's the odds on the GOP introducing a Bill allowing/requiring a rapist to marry an impregnated victim?

Can I put $10 in the 'within the next 5 years' box?
 
2013-01-13 05:33:21 AM
Why is this topic so hard for men to understand. You have no right whatsoever to the child in the woman's womb. None. Zero. Not in ANY circumstance.

Deal with it, its never going to change until "Junior" becomes a documentary.

/man
 
2013-01-13 05:34:24 AM

clowncar on fire: wjmorris3: clowncar on fire: wjmorris3: The Republicans have forgotten that all pregnancies start from rape, haven't they?

Which is it, dumbass, is it impossible to get pregnant as the body rejects fertilization during trauma such as rape or is it that all life begins at rape?

A lie can only become a truth as long as it remains consistant over time. If you can't keep your story straight, you'll fail at rewriting history.

Rape is any sexual act that a man performs on a woman. So all pregnancies in theory start with rape.

Seriously? Rape is an unwanted act of agression as a means control and humiliation by achieving this through the act of sex. It is done for the control aspect, not for the sexual or emotional pleasure derived as an act of sharing.

Sex quickly devolves into rape the moment one or the other partners says "no" and the request to stop is ignored and instead becomes more agressively persistant. Consensual sex is hardly rape.


But to accept any form of rape as "consensual" and therefore acceptable is misogyny. How can you respect women and at the same time say its okay for a man to rape them so long as they get the woman's consent?
 
2013-01-13 05:45:44 AM

randomjsa: We heard that before Obama was elected too, but don't worry, this time we mean it!


img248.imageshack.us
"What, me worry?"
 
2013-01-13 05:55:41 AM

Kibbler: I seriously think that he's a victim of fetal alcohol syndrome. This is no garden variety of imbecility.


i49.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-13 05:58:39 AM

justtray: Why is this topic so hard for men to understand. You have no right whatsoever to the child in the woman's womb. None. Zero. Not in ANY circumstance.


OK, playing devil's advocate for just a second, let me ask you this question:

Why not?

Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you. But ignoring the rape angle this asshat Ryan is making for a moment, there is the general argument from the other side that is basically this: If two people create something, then why shouldn't two people have a say in what happens to that something?

Again, I'm not defending the pro-lifers. I'm just tired of seeing pro-choicers come up with vague arguments other than "because it's WRONG!"
 
2013-01-13 06:19:45 AM

justtray: Why is this topic so hard for men to understand. You have no right whatsoever to the child in the woman's womb. None. Zero. Not in ANY circumstance.

Deal with it, its never going to change until "Junior" becomes a documentary.

/man


That's not exactly true. Men have the right to be the father. And they don't even have to be in the hospital or consent to being named one, at the birth!
/ cue child support
 
2013-01-13 06:21:52 AM
Fundamental christains are worse than al-queda.
 
Displayed 50 of 356 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report