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  
•       •       •

7637 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 06:28:57 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: 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!"


Are you serious...? I just explained it. Until the man is carrying the child, they have absolutely no right whatsoever to the child in the woman's womb. When/if the child is born, then they have a legal right. Not as strong a one as the woman, but we refer to it as "custody."

I really didn't think I made that unclear, but there you go.
 
2013-01-13 06:29:39 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: 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?


Because only one of those two people is forced to gestate it for nine months (and probably raise it for eighteen years), which has been said about a dozen times in this thread already. It's sexual slavery, and it's designed to be sexual slavery.

starsrift: 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!


03.wir.skyrock.net

Problem solved.
 
2013-01-13 06:30:56 AM  

starsrift: 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


See my above answer. You guys are conflating custody with the right to control a pregnant woman's decisions. Not the same thing. When the child is born, sue, whatever, all you want for control of the child. Until then, a man has no rights whatsoever to the 'developing child,' or whatever you want to call it, fetus.
 
2013-01-13 06:33:16 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: LeoffDaGrate: 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?

Because only one of those two people is forced to gestate it for nine months (and probably raise it for eighteen years), which has been said about a dozen times in this thread already. It's sexual slavery, and it's designed to be sexual slavery.

starsrift: 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!

[03.wir.skyrock.net image 301x301]

Problem solved.


Yeah, I don't get why these people are being so obtuse. It's really not a difficult concept. It should be common sense. It's like some guys just can't bear the idea that they don't have absolute control over everything.
 
2013-01-13 06:38:50 AM  

Rich Cream: If you hypocritical libs really cared about the children forced into this world then you would allow the option of that child having the parent that legally proves to be the better provider.


so we can just get right to buying and selling them, then. Sure, why not--the only difference between that and now is that now the money has to funnel through a bunch of lawyers before someone can finalize their purchase.

I'd like to hear your argument for giving custody of a newborn baby to someone other than the mother, if she's fit. Nothing unnatural about that. And maybe you don't know much about mothers: they will farking kill you if you try to take their babies away from them. That's natural.
 
2013-01-13 06:40:52 AM  

justtray: LeoffDaGrate: 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!"

Are you serious...? I just explained it. Until the man is carrying the child, they have absolutely no right whatsoever to the child in the woman's womb. When/if the child is born, then they have a legal right. Not as strong a one as the woman, but we refer to it as "custody."

I really didn't think I made that unclear, but there you go.



OK, perhaps I didn't make myself clear then. I would like to hear your own moral and ethical argument against a man's rights concerning an unborn fetus. Forget about current legal aspects and opinions, I want to hear YOUR views that are simply saying "Men shouldn't have ANY right" when they have a hand in the creative process.

Do women do most of the work? Yes. Very few here are denying that. But to simply say a that a man has NO rights towards the future existence of another human being... it sounds a bit selfish and callous.
 
2013-01-13 06:45:35 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: justtray: LeoffDaGrate: 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!"

Are you serious...? I just explained it. Until the man is carrying the child, they have absolutely no right whatsoever to the child in the woman's womb. When/if the child is born, then they have a legal right. Not as strong a one as the woman, but we refer to it as "custody."

I really didn't think I made that unclear, but there you go.


OK, perhaps I didn't make myself clear then. I would like to hear your own moral and ethical argument against a man's rights concerning an unborn fetus. Forget about current legal aspects and opinions, I want to hear YOUR views that are simply saying "Men shouldn't have ANY right" when they have a hand in the creative process.

Do women do most of the work? Yes. Very few here are denying that. But to simply say a that a man has NO rights towards the future existence of another human being... it sounds a bit selfish and callous.


I just explained it to you twice. I don't know how I could be anymore clear. Stop trolling just because you have no response.
 
2013-01-13 06:46:42 AM  

justtray: Yeah, I don't get why these people are being so obtuse. It's really not a difficult concept. It should be common sense. It's like some guys just can't bear the idea that they don't have absolute control over everything.


Between "Devil's advocate" and Leoff's response to you, I'm going with "Probably trolling."
 
2013-01-13 06:54:59 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle:

[03.wir.skyrock.net image 301x301]

Problem solved.


The most evil device ever invented.

/Wish I lived in that great period after the invention of penicillin and before the rise of stds that couldn't be treated by it.
 
2013-01-13 07:00:51 AM  

justtray: Until the man is carrying the child, they have absolutely no right whatsoever to the child in the woman's womb. When/if the child is born, then they have a legal right. Not as strong a one as the woman, but we refer to it as "custody."

OK, perhaps I didn't make myself clear then. I would like to hear your own moral and ethical argument against a man's rights concerning an unborn fetus. Forget about current legal aspects and opinions, I want to hear YOUR views that are simply saying "Men shouldn't have ANY right" when they have a hand in the creative process.

Do women do most of the work? Yes. Very few here are denying that. But to simply say a that a man has NO rights towards the future existence of another human being... it sounds a bit selfish and callous.

I just explained it to you twice. I don't know how I could be anymore clear.


No, you really didn't explain it to me at all, let alone twice. You're simply saying "A man has no rights until the fetus/child/whatever" is born." That is not an explanation. That is an opinion without any reason.

I'm asking your moral reasoning: what is the difference between a man's rights towards a child pre and post childbirth.

Stop trolling just because you have no response.

I'm not trolling. I don't have a response because, so far, I don't see you having a valid argument other than stamping your foot and yelling that men have no rights, period. I'm genuinely interested in your response and rationale.

And again, I'm not talking Roe v. Wade, or any established local, state or federal laws. I'm looking for YOUR explanation as to why a man doesn't have rights pre-childbirth as opposed to post.
 
2013-01-13 07:05:08 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: justtray: Until the man is carrying the child, they have absolutely no right whatsoever to the child in the woman's womb. When/if the child is born, then they have a legal right. Not as strong a one as the woman, but we refer to it as "custody."

OK, perhaps I didn't make myself clear then. I would like to hear your own moral and ethical argument against a man's rights concerning an unborn fetus. Forget about current legal aspects and opinions, I want to hear YOUR views that are simply saying "Men shouldn't have ANY right" when they have a hand in the creative process.

Do women do most of the work? Yes. Very few here are denying that. But to simply say a that a man has NO rights towards the future existence of another human being... it sounds a bit selfish and callous.

I just explained it to you twice. I don't know how I could be anymore clear.

No, you really didn't explain it to me at all, let alone twice. You're simply saying "A man has no rights until the fetus/child/whatever" is born." That is not an explanation. That is an opinion without any reason.

I'm asking your moral reasoning: what is the difference between a man's rights towards a child pre and post childbirth.

Stop trolling just because you have no response.

I'm not trolling. I don't have a response because, so far, I don't see you having a valid argument other than stamping your foot and yelling that men have no rights, period. I'm genuinely interested in your response and rationale.

And again, I'm not talking Roe v. Wade, or any established local, state or federal laws. I'm looking for YOUR explanation as to why a man doesn't have rights pre-childbirth as opposed to post.


Because the man is not carrying the child in his womb.
 
2013-01-13 07:15:33 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: starsrift: 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!

[03.wir.skyrock.net image 301x301]

Problem solved.


Yup.
 
2013-01-13 07:17:15 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: I don't have a response because, so far, I don't see you having a valid argument other than stamping your foot and yelling that men have no rights, period. ... And again, I'm not talking Roe v. Wade, or any established local, state or federal laws.


Fluorescent Testicle: Between "Devil's advocate" and Leoff's response to you, I'm going with "Probably

definitely trolling."

/FTFM.
 
2013-01-13 07:22:36 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: 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?


Guys can say all they want but only one person gets to decide and it has to be the woman.

Period.

/This is just another patently obvious (not to mention unconstitutional) attempt by the GOP to make the window on abortion so tiny nobody can make it through in case anyone hadn't figured that out yet.
 
2013-01-13 07:24:20 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: Do women do most of the work? Yes.


LOL! "most"???
 
2013-01-13 07:34:01 AM  

Rich Cream: If you hypocritical libs really cared about the children forced into this world then you would allow the option of that child having the parent that legally proves to be the better provider.


A rapist will never prove to be a better provider. Because he's a FARKING RAPIST.
 
2013-01-13 07:38:13 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: justtray: LeoffDaGrate: 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!"

Are you serious...? I just explained it. Until the man is carrying the child, they have absolutely no right whatsoever to the child in the woman's womb. When/if the child is born, then they have a legal right. Not as strong a one as the woman, but we refer to it as "custody."

I really didn't think I made that unclear, but there you go.


OK, perhaps I didn't make myself clear then. I would like to hear your own moral and ethical argument against a man's rights concerning an unborn fetus. Forget about current legal aspects and opinions, I want to hear YOUR views that are simply saying "Men shouldn't have ANY right" when they have a hand in the creative process.

Do women do most of the work? Yes. Very few here are denying that. But to simply say a that a man has NO rights towards the future existence of another human being... it sounds a bit selfish and callous.


Pro choice here, and a man. I think that since pregnancy is up to chance and not something 100% under control of either party, choice should fall to the person who has to carry the child to birth, and has to pay medical expenses and her own time in carrying a child.

The guy hd sex and thats it, he can typically create another easily. Women have sex and then nine months of pain and inconvenience, followed by the agony of birth. The women are the ones who have to deal with it, and especially the consequences. It is their choice because it directly impacts their life.
 
2013-01-13 07:38:19 AM  

justtray: LeoffDaGrate: justtray: Until the man is carrying the child, they have absolutely no right whatsoever to the child in the woman's womb. When/if the child is born, then they have a legal right. Not as strong a one as the woman, but we refer to it as "custody."

OK, perhaps I didn't make myself clear then. I would like to hear your own moral and ethical argument against a man's rights concerning an unborn fetus. Forget about current legal aspects and opinions, I want to hear YOUR views that are simply saying "Men shouldn't have ANY right" when they have a hand in the creative process.

Do women do most of the work? Yes. Very few here are denying that. But to simply say a that a man has NO rights towards the future existence of another human being... it sounds a bit selfish and callous.

I just explained it to you twice. I don't know how I could be anymore clear.

No, you really didn't explain it to me at all, let alone twice. You're simply saying "A man has no rights until the fetus/child/whatever" is born." That is not an explanation. That is an opinion without any reason.

I'm asking your moral reasoning: what is the difference between a man's rights towards a child pre and post childbirth.

Stop trolling just because you have no response.

I'm not trolling. I don't have a response because, so far, I don't see you having a valid argument other than stamping your foot and yelling that men have no rights, period. I'm genuinely interested in your response and rationale.

And again, I'm not talking Roe v. Wade, or any established local, state or federal laws. I'm looking for YOUR explanation as to why a man doesn't have rights pre-childbirth as opposed to post.

Because the man is not carrying the child in his womb.


OK, so by your reasoning, because a woman carries the unborn child in her womb before birth, that gives her complete control, morally and legally, over the child. That is understandable.

Why then must a woman give up part of that control to a man after birth? Just because a man is capable of caring for the child (feeding, nurturing, teaching, etc.), the woman has already been established as primary care giver by the simple act of carrying the child to term. Why, then, does that change? Do you believe it should change? Isn't the woman always in charge?
 
2013-01-13 07:42:10 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: justtray: LeoffDaGrate: justtray: Until the man is carrying the child, they have absolutely no right whatsoever to the child in the woman's womb. When/if the child is born, then they have a legal right. Not as strong a one as the woman, but we refer to it as "custody."

OK, perhaps I didn't make myself clear then. I would like to hear your own moral and ethical argument against a man's rights concerning an unborn fetus. Forget about current legal aspects and opinions, I want to hear YOUR views that are simply saying "Men shouldn't have ANY right" when they have a hand in the creative process.

Do women do most of the work? Yes. Very few here are denying that. But to simply say a that a man has NO rights towards the future existence of another human being... it sounds a bit selfish and callous.

I just explained it to you twice. I don't know how I could be anymore clear.

No, you really didn't explain it to me at all, let alone twice. You're simply saying "A man has no rights until the fetus/child/whatever" is born." That is not an explanation. That is an opinion without any reason.

I'm asking your moral reasoning: what is the difference between a man's rights towards a child pre and post childbirth.

Stop trolling just because you have no response.

I'm not trolling. I don't have a response because, so far, I don't see you having a valid argument other than stamping your foot and yelling that men have no rights, period. I'm genuinely interested in your response and rationale.

And again, I'm not talking Roe v. Wade, or any established local, state or federal laws. I'm looking for YOUR explanation as to why a man doesn't have rights pre-childbirth as opposed to post.

Because the man is not carrying the child in his womb.

OK, so by your reasoning, because a woman carries the unborn child in her womb before birth, that gives her complete control, morally and legally, over the child. That is understandable.

Why then must a woman give up part of that control to a ma ...


Traditionally men became the providers after a childs birth, for the mother and child. After a childs birth the dad can directly nfluence the child after. You cant rip a kid out of a woman and finish the term in a man, you can give a cild to a man if the mother is unable to care for them.

Once born, both parents are responsible. Until birth its the mothers in the stomach because its a part of her.
 
2013-01-13 07:47:39 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: OK, so by your reasoning, because a woman carries the unborn child in her womb before birth, that gives her complete control, morally and legally, over the child. That is understandable.

Why then must a woman give up part of that control to a man after birth? Just because a man is capable of caring for the child (feeding, nurturing, teaching, etc.), the woman has already been established as primary care giver by the simple act of carrying the child to term. Why, then, does that change? Do you believe it should change? Isn't the woman always in charge?


well you see Data, the unborn human child is is actually a part of the mother. It is physically attached to her. Her own blood nourishes it. when a human child is born, this is no longer the case, and then the male half, the father, is able to help with the caring of the child as well.

now how is your new humor subroutine working?
 
2013-01-13 07:48:18 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: justtray: LeoffDaGrate: justtray: Until the man is carrying the child, they have absolutely no right whatsoever to the child in the woman's womb. When/if the child is born, then they have a legal right. Not as strong a one as the woman, but we refer to it as "custody."

OK, perhaps I didn't make myself clear then. I would like to hear your own moral and ethical argument against a man's rights concerning an unborn fetus. Forget about current legal aspects and opinions, I want to hear YOUR views that are simply saying "Men shouldn't have ANY right" when they have a hand in the creative process.

Do women do most of the work? Yes. Very few here are denying that. But to simply say a that a man has NO rights towards the future existence of another human being... it sounds a bit selfish and callous.

I just explained it to you twice. I don't know how I could be anymore clear.

No, you really didn't explain it to me at all, let alone twice. You're simply saying "A man has no rights until the fetus/child/whatever" is born." That is not an explanation. That is an opinion without any reason.

I'm asking your moral reasoning: what is the difference between a man's rights towards a child pre and post childbirth.

Stop trolling just because you have no response.

I'm not trolling. I don't have a response because, so far, I don't see you having a valid argument other than stamping your foot and yelling that men have no rights, period. I'm genuinely interested in your response and rationale.

And again, I'm not talking Roe v. Wade, or any established local, state or federal laws. I'm looking for YOUR explanation as to why a man doesn't have rights pre-childbirth as opposed to post.

Because the man is not carrying the child in his womb.

OK, so by your reasoning, because a woman carries the unborn child in her womb before birth, that gives her complete control, morally and legally, over the child. That is understandable.

Why then must a woman give up part of that control to a ma ...


Usually the woman is always in charge. And she has more right to the child. When it's unborn she has 100% control and right. I don't know you're being deliberately obtuse, it couldn't be anymore obvious. I think you should have the birds and the bees talk with your parents if you're still confused, and if you want to have a philosophical talk, maybe find a professor that wants to argue with you about societal and biological norms.
 
2013-01-13 08:11:35 AM  

log_jammin: LeoffDaGrate: OK, so by your reasoning, because a woman carries the unborn child in her womb before birth, that gives her complete control, morally and legally, over the child. That is understandable.

Why then must a woman give up part of that control to a man after birth? Just because a man is capable of caring for the child (feeding, nurturing, teaching, etc.), the woman has already been established as primary care giver by the simple act of carrying the child to term. Why, then, does that change? Do you believe it should change? Isn't the woman always in charge?

well you see Data, the unborn human child is is actually a part of the mother. It is physically attached to her. Her own blood nourishes it. when a human child is born, this is no longer the case, and then the male half, the father, is able to help with the caring of the child as well.

now how is your new humor subroutine working?


It's funny that, just because someone asks a question, you instantly mock them when there is the SLIGHTEST hint of disagreement...

Obvious there is a physical change and separation after birth. But morally, what has now changed after birth? A woman in today's world is perfectly capable of raising a happy, healthy, normal child on her own. Why is the man needed or even wanted? His opinion or rights to the child didn't matter before, why should they now?
 
2013-01-13 08:17:48 AM  
The GOP's Great White Dope, Ladies and Gentlemen...

Shameless ideologues and regressive assholes.
 
2013-01-13 08:23:36 AM  
Sweet Mother of Jaysus! This pathetic facsimile of a Man could have been just a heartbeat away from being the Leader of the Free World. This is what today's GOP has on offer for the American People.i.huffpost.com
 
2013-01-13 08:30:15 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....



Yes, because the possibility of rape was not forseen in the crafting of the bill. It's a completely new consideration and no GOP politician has addressed the issue yet. Clearly just an inconsequential byproduct that people are blowing out of proportion, and judges (who are not supposed to "legislate from the bench") will overlook in favor of some concept of "common sense" that protects "legitimate" biological fathers.

Well done.

6/10
 
2013-01-13 08:31:26 AM  
This is a joke right? No politician is this farking stupid. Right? Guys? Why are you laughing?
 
2013-01-13 08:34:55 AM  

chuggernaught: No politician is this farking stupid. Right?


You did see him attempt to debate Biden, didn't you? : )

Gomer Pyle, here, is the best and brightest of the GOP, apparently. This is their intellectual heavy weight. That ought to tell you ll you need to know about the state of the current GOP.
 
2013-01-13 08:39:15 AM  
"We lost the Presidential election, and lost seats in both the House and the Senate. What should we do?"

"We should talk about rape more."
 
2013-01-13 08:54:18 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Republicans before Nov. 6, 2010: JOBS!  JOBS!  JOBS!!

Republicans after Nov. 6, 2010:  RAPE!!  ABORTION!! RAPE!! REPEAL OBAMACARE!! RAPE!! CONTRACEPTION!! RAPE!! TRANSVAGINAL PROBES!!  RAPE!! DID WE MENTION RAPE?!?!?  RAAAAAAPE!!!

Yes, Grand Old Party, spend your actual "working" time writing up legislation that has little chance of passing the House, NO CHANCE of passing the Senate, and thus has ZERO chance of reaching the President's desk, where it would get vetoed if it did (which it NEVER will), and have about a -150% chance of overriding the veto.

This a valuable use of your time.  This is why you get six-figure salaries and benefits and privileges up the ying-yang, to spend your time on shiat that you know is going nowhere.

If When it gets shot down in flames, just write-up another one, and try it again!  And again!  And again!
Hell, try it 10, 15, 30 times!!

But remember folks, it's the teachers and the poor people that are the problem with America.

F*cking Republicans.  Biggest group of worthless assholes on earth.


They cannot protect our jobs from being outsourced, but they can protect rapists. So, they got that going for them, which is nice.
 
2013-01-13 08:59:59 AM  
Republicans seem to enjoy rape and like rapists.
 
2013-01-13 09:03:20 AM  
I think it was a republican in Blazing Saddles
What crimes did you commit
Rape Murder Rape
You said Rape twice
I know I like Rape
 
2013-01-13 09:04:07 AM  
Democrats have really gotten good at conflating "life begins at conception" with pro-rape. Its about damn time they fought fire with fire
 
2013-01-13 09:25:51 AM  
Pregnancy and delivery are risky ventures that can kill or permanently impact the health of the mother. Yes, even in a modern U.S. hospital, women die from complications of pregnancy or delivery every day.  Women must retain the right to make informed decisions on pregnancy and abortion. Women do not need help to make that decision; it is their condition to bear and their  life to lose.

If a man wants a "say" in a woman's choice to have an abortion, have that talk before she's pregnant.
 
2013-01-13 09:27:24 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Republicans before Nov. 6, 2010: JOBS!  JOBS!  JOBS!!

Republicans after Nov. 6, 2010:  RAPE!!  ABORTION!! RAPE!! REPEAL OBAMACARE!! RAPE!! CONTRACEPTION!! RAPE!! TRANSVAGINAL PROBES!!  RAPE!! DID WE MENTION RAPE?!?!?  RAAAAAAPE!!!

Yes, Grand Old Party, spend your actual "working" time writing up legislation that has little chance of passing the House, NO CHANCE of passing the Senate, and thus has ZERO chance of reaching the President's desk, where it would get vetoed if it did (which it NEVER will), and have about a -150% chance of overriding the veto.

This a valuable use of your time.  This is why you get six-figure salaries and benefits and privileges up the ying-yang, to spend your time on shiat that you know is going nowhere.

If When it gets shot down in flames, just write-up another one, and try it again!  And again!  And again!
Hell, try it 10, 15, 30 times!!

But remember folks, it's the teachers and the poor people that are the problem with America.

F*cking Republicans.  Biggest group of worthless assholes on earth.


This is one of the most repeat-worthy posts I've seen in a long time.
 
2013-01-13 09:28:23 AM  
Fiurst of all, stop thanking Ryan for writing off his chances in the 2016 election. Ryan won't be the nominee in 2016, or even the running mate. He tied his wagon to the Romney clinker and his executive prospects are now nil. So Ryan's options are to remain in the House, where his job is secure, or move on to the Senate where he need merely await a sutiable opening. Paul Ryan can say and do anything he wants because there are no repercussions. And that, unfortunately, is the state of the entire repub Party.

The repub Party just received a powerful lesson that, unless they compromise on all they truly hold dear (special privileges for rich people and grinding down the lower classes to ensure continued servility) and reject the faux populist religious fascism of the Tea Party, they cannot win the presidency. On the other hand, if they go on just the way they are now, their Congressional and state legislative paychecks are secure. So, take a chance, reform your party, alienate both the rich who pay for your campaigns and the stupid who don't know which side their bread is buttered on, and have a shot at making a genuine difference in how the country is run? Or, stick to your guns, literally and figuratively, toss a crowbar in the machinery of government and bask in the praise of people who, if they had a lick of sense would be running you out of town on a rail? Plus, if you muck things up sufficiently you might succeed in pinning the blame on the Democrats and possibly take back the White House.

Ryan's made his choice. So, I suspect, have a lot of folks on the repub side of the aisle. The question now is, can Obama find an effective way to work around conservative intransigence and govern the country? He's tried the carrot, to no avail. Can he find an effective stick? Does hae have the guts to use it?
 
2013-01-13 09:30:05 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: Obvious there is a physical change and separation after birth. But morally, what has now changed after birth? A woman in today's world is perfectly capable of raising a happy, healthy, normal child on her own. Why is the man needed or even wanted? His opinion or rights to the child didn't matter before, why should they now?


Firstly, the dividing line is viability, not birth. Once the child has a reasonable chance of surviving as an independent organism it's no longer legal to abort it save in cases of threat to the physical health of the mother.

Secondly, if you can find a second willing parent and the man doesn't want to be involved, the courts will have basically no issues letting you adopt. The concern is support and parental availability for the kid, which is theoretically possible but not terribly likely for a single parent. For the most part so long as there are two parents involved the law couldn't be arsed to care whether they're biologically related unless the parents themselves have a related issue and bring it up themselves.
 
2013-01-13 09:41:19 AM  

Sgt Otter: 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."


How did I live in Germany for 5 years and never learn this word?
 
2013-01-13 09:47:38 AM  

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

It's as simple as that.

DEAL WITH IT.


Than no woman should have the right to demand child support.

/fuel on the fire
 
2013-01-13 09:49:00 AM  

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: Pregnancy and delivery are risky ventures that can kill or permanently impact the health of the mother. Yes, even in a modern U.S. hospital, women die from complications of pregnancy or delivery every day.  Women must retain the right to make informed decisions on pregnancy and abortion. Women do not need help to make that decision; it is their condition to bear and their  life to lose.

If a man wants a "say" in a woman's choice to have an abortion, have that talk before she's pregnant.


I think you underestimate the importance of women as child incubators to the likes of Mr. Ryan.
 
2013-01-13 09:49:57 AM  

Bacontastesgood: Has Jezebel sunk any lower than saying the girls in the Gap "talk to the moose" ad were being exploited as sex objects?


Well, there is a fine line between being a cheerleader and a stripper.
 
2013-01-13 09:50:05 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: mrshowrules: Peter von Nostrand: Hmmmm... considering the source of the analysis, I'll take a pass for now

They provide supporting links (HuffPo) and the Bill is a matter of public record (GovTrack website).  What aspect of the story do you find suspicious?

From what is cited by Bravado I don't see it. However, I only have my GED in law and based on what others have written, I gathered it was analysis from TFAs linked web site. I didn't have time to read through the whole thing and half a dozen links

Somacandra: Peter von Nostrand: Hmmmm... considering the source of the analysis, I'll take a pass for now

Then here's the same story from an anti-abortionist website.  You are now free to post derp without giving poor ol' Jezebel a clicky-click. You're welcome, candyass.

LOL, so I'm a right winger now? That's a good one


You didn't initially drink any Kool-Aid just because Ryan is a non-person around these parts. You asked for more information, and more neutral sources before making a decision about what was actually being said and how to interpret what was being said.

That makes you a bad person.
 
2013-01-13 09:56:57 AM  

clowncar on fire: dickfreckle: Superjoe: Let's face it, they have no reason, they are just pro-rapist. I have no idea why, but they are.

I can't decide if it's actually "pro-rape" or "trying to keep women powerless." I think this should concern even pro-life women, but they'll be too busy dancing in the streets with glee.

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. Unfortunately, rapists occasionally impregnate their victims and are granted coverage under this law is well. Isn't it that way with every law or bill ever written? that it offered equal protection(?) to all whether criminal or law abiding citizen?


It's not actually pro-anything. it's anti-abortion. And you're being either willfully blind to that, naive, or outright supportive.
 
2013-01-13 10:01:41 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? And to share that thought in a public way, so everyone in the country knows that you care concerned about the rights of goddamned rapists, people who are (I guess i have to say,  should be) universally scorned criminals of one of the highest orders.   How sick and sad to you have to be, as an elected official, to think this is an issue that you must speak out on, above all the other things that you could?  ( A suggestion: speaking out AGAINST RAPE would be a good idea... just saying.)

Paul Ryan and his ilk are not fit to be elected county dog catcher, never mind to hold the offices they have been elected to. They are sick, sad, demented people who I genuinely believe to be sociopaths.

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?


Ryan's a piece of garbage utterly for suggesting that a rapist ought to be able to benefit from the results of his violation of another person (that is, that he should have access to the children produced despite forcing himself onto the mother against her will), but otherwise the rights of the accused must be recognized and protected. That's sort of a huge deal and one of the founding principles of this nation.
 
2013-01-13 10:14:07 AM  
What the fark is wrong with that guy? How many women has that weaselly little farker raped, anyway?
 
2013-01-13 10:14:29 AM  

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.


Ima let you finish, but Sean Hannity has the most punch able face of all time. Plus he has lips, so you can punch him in the mouth without ruining your knuckles.
 
2013-01-13 10:20:48 AM  

Sock Ruh Tease: Republicans: for a government small enough to fit in your vagina.


I think the word, "vagina" has been banned from the GOP controlled house. It's too icky, or something.
 
2013-01-13 10:20:56 AM  
Paul Ryan is a piece of human garbage.

That being said, the link on Jezebel describing this "sue the rape victim" thing just links to another Jezebel article, where the provisions of the bill are quoted and then it is just asserted that this means that a rapist could sue their victim for going across state-lines for an abortion, with no further citation. I'm not defending the provisions of this bill. But I'd need to see some kind of authority weigh-in on this accusation before taking it seriously.

That said, this bill is horrendous and should never be seriously considered by legislators in a civilized country.
 
2013-01-13 10:31:55 AM  

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

Really?

[i48.tinypic.com image 320x240]


www.dvdtalk.com

Fark Tucker! Tucker sucks!
 
2013-01-13 10:37:00 AM  

clowncar on fire: 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.


What a giant retarded waste of court resources that is.
 
2013-01-13 10:42:59 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: 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!"


Playing devil's advocate is about advancing the discussionby adding something to it. It isn't acting like a toddler and saying "why why why" to everything.

Additionally multiple people have already answered your question in the thread, you intellectually lazy jackass.
 
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 archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report