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
 
2013-01-12 03:40:43 PM  
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!
 
2013-01-12 04:01:11 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-12 04:08:39 PM  

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.


His face is quite punchable. When the Revolution comes, while the Lawyers (and politicians) are lined up against the Wall, Paul Ryan will be set aside from the others, with a line of angry women waiting for their turn to either punch him in the face or kick him in the jumblies. A Fiver slipped to the guards gives a lady both options on her turn.
 
2013-01-12 04:13:29 PM  

MmmmBacon: 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.

His face is quite punchable. When the Revolution comes, while the Lawyers (and politicians) are lined up against the Wall, Paul Ryan will be set aside from the others, with a line of angry women waiting for their turn to either punch him in the face or kick him in the jumblies. A Fiver slipped to the guards gives a lady both options on her turn.


I would definitely go for the face - if only to shut him up. Besides Im not sure he has jumblies.
 
2013-01-12 04:47:46 PM  
Of all the controversial issues they could have picked to make central to their platform, I for one, am glad that the GOP decided to become the pro-rape party.  That's a message that is sure to bring the people out to the polls in huge numbers.
 
2013-01-12 04:48:53 PM  

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 think he may have been that easy "push" when you finally get over the top, but the GOP had a gob-smackingly huge assortment of stupidity, sociopathic behavior problems, and out-in-daylight larceny helping to get him to that pinnacle of jackassery.

I'm not jewish, but I've been at enough seders to remember there's a part of the hagaddah(sp?) going "without X there couldn't have been Y" and so on. There's a story of that epic scale to be made of the 1992-2012 GOP.

/maybe before then too, but I can vouch for the last 20 years of absolute bag-over-head brain damage.
 
2013-01-12 05:10:49 PM  
but if she got pregnant it wasn't really rape
 
2013-01-12 05:35:55 PM  
sure his face is punchable - but it's not reince priebus punchable.
 
2013-01-12 06:34:01 PM  
what the fark is wrong with these people? I mean seriously, what is wrong?
 
2013-01-12 06:37:31 PM  

cannotsuggestaname: what the fark is wrong with these people? I mean seriously, what is wrong?


Playing to their base and hoping nobody else remembers come election day?
 
2013-01-12 06:38:31 PM  

FlashHarry: sure his face is punchable - but it's not reince priebus punchable.


Well I suppose it's a matter of personal taste. But that smirk on Ryan's face just makes me clench my fist. OTOH I think Reince Priebus is a much more punchable name.
 
2013-01-12 06:41:17 PM  

fusillade762: cannotsuggestaname: what the fark is wrong with these people? I mean seriously, what is wrong?

Playing to their base and hoping nobody else remembers come election day?


This, more than anything else, just proves how out of touch they are with women. When, in the history of human kind, did a woman ever forget an insult.
 
2013-01-12 06:44:05 PM  

cannotsuggestaname: what the fark is wrong with these people? I mean seriously, what is wrong?


They are conservative. This fits the bill exactly.
 
2013-01-12 06:47:39 PM  

quickdraw: FlashHarry: sure his face is punchable - but it's not reince priebus punchable.

Well I suppose it's a matter of personal taste. But that smirk on Ryan's face just makes me clench my fist. OTOH I think Reince Priebus is a much more punchable name.


Doocey has the most punch able face I've ever seen
 
2013-01-12 06:56:28 PM  
www.quotecollection.com

Paul Ryan. (File photo).

/hot
 
2013-01-12 06:58:36 PM  
img.rp.vhd.me
"If you happen to have a chatty GOP member as a passenger, ask him to do this one thing: SHUT THE FARK UP."
 
2013-01-12 07:08:18 PM  
Heartbeat from the Presidency.

Oh GOP, you so crazy!
 
2013-01-12 07:08:19 PM  
If the Republifarktards can't agree on rape, how the hell can they expect to agree on anything?
 
2013-01-12 07:10:46 PM  
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?
 
2013-01-12 07:25:36 PM  
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.
 
2013-01-12 07:29:21 PM  
Here's the entire declaration from the offending act:


SEC. 2. DECLARATION. In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress' power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States-- (1) the Congress declares that-- (A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and (B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions. It seems a "bit" of a stretch to read that, and then come to the conclusion that Paul Ryan's intent is to "make sure rapists have the right to sue the raped mothers of their rape babies for custody."
 
2013-01-12 07:33:59 PM  
You know who ELSE was a Republican who was really into rape?

niviusvir.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-12 07:40:11 PM  

BravadoGT: Here's the entire declaration from the offending act:


SEC. 2. DECLARATION. In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress' power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States-- (1) the Congress declares that-- (A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and (B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions. It seems a "bit" of a stretch to read that, and then come to the conclusion that Paul Ryan's intent is to "make sure rapists have the right to sue the raped mothers of their rape babies for custody."


Well this is how Jezebel analyzed it.

"Which actually means that states would have the right to ban all abortions with no exception for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Further, in those states, if a woman was raped and wanted to have an abortion in another state, her rapist could theoretically sue her to stop the abortion, and Drum suspects that he'd probably win. "

And I can see their reasoning. Under that law the father could prevent the abortion and sue for custody. Especially in states that already give rapists paternal rights.
 
2013-01-12 07:44:03 PM  

quickdraw: BravadoGT: Here's the entire declaration from the offending act:


SEC. 2. DECLARATION. In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress' power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States-- (1) the Congress declares that-- (A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and (B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions. It seems a "bit" of a stretch to read that, and then come to the conclusion that Paul Ryan's intent is to "make sure rapists have the right to sue the raped mothers of their rape babies for custody."

Well this is how Jezebel analyzed it.

"Which actually means that states would have the right to ban all abortions with no exception for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Further, in those states, if a woman was raped and wanted to have an abortion in another state, her rapist could theoretically sue her to stop the abortion, and Drum suspects that he'd probably win. "

And I can see their reasoning. Under that law the father could prevent the abortion and sue for custody. Especially in states that already give rapists paternal rights.


Even accepting all of those assumptions as true--to categorize Ryan's intent as such is pretty specious
 
2013-01-12 07:55:21 PM  
There are few laws that could be enacted that would increase the likelihood that a woman would want an abortion.  I imagine knowing her rapist could sue for custody, and therefore become a permanent part of her life, would do it!
 
2013-01-12 08:01:49 PM  
Republicans: for a government small enough to fit in your vagina.
 
2013-01-12 08:14:06 PM  

BravadoGT: quickdraw: BravadoGT: Here's the entire declaration from the offending act:


SEC. 2. DECLARATION. In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress' power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States-- (1) the Congress declares that-- (A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and (B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions. It seems a "bit" of a stretch to read that, and then come to the conclusion that Paul Ryan's intent is to "make sure rapists have the right to sue the raped mothers of their rape babies for custody."

Well this is how Jezebel analyzed it.

"Which actually means that states would have the right to ban all abortions with no exception for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Further, in those states, if a woman was raped and wanted to have an abortion in another state, her rapist could theoretically sue her to stop the abortion, and Drum suspects that he'd probably win. "

And I can see their reasoning. Under that law the father could prevent the abortion and sue for custody. Especially in states that already give rapists paternal rights.

Even accepting all of those assumptions as true--to categorize Ryan's intent as such is pretty specious


"Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to."

/if you give Oklahoma a free hand, I guarantee you'll get some screwed up laws.
 
2013-01-12 08:42:26 PM  
I bet $25 space dollars that a Republican will eventually say: "If there's anything 70's porno has shown me it's that women might say no, but they're into by the time the bass starts playing. " or something very similar in the 2013.
 
2013-01-12 08:49:22 PM  
(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood

That's odd that they single out gender like that. No protections for sexual preference or race?
 
2013-01-12 09:05:19 PM  

fusillade762: (B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood

That's odd that they single out gender like that. No protections for sexual preference or race?


Or the parent's political affiliation.

Very sneaky, Republicans
 
2013-01-12 09:09:52 PM  
Hmmmm... considering the source of the analysis, I'll take a pass for now
 
2013-01-12 09:15:03 PM  
But, if rapists are felons, and felons are automatically bad people, then how can you reconcile giving custody to a rotten con?

Don't forget to show your work.
 
2013-01-12 09:19:09 PM  
You said "to" twice, you must really like "to."
 
2013-01-12 09:19:52 PM  

quickdraw: fusillade762: cannotsuggestaname: what the fark is wrong with these people? I mean seriously, what is wrong?

Playing to their base and hoping nobody else remembers come election day?

This, more than anything else, just proves how out of touch they are with women. When, in the history of human kind, did a woman ever forget an insult.


Forget or simply drop the subject for a few decades?
 
2013-01-12 09:20:20 PM  

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


Especially if we don't want it there. That only seems to excite them further.
 
2013-01-12 09:23:08 PM  

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?
 
2013-01-12 09:25:50 PM  

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."
 
2013-01-12 09:44:21 PM  
Let us arrange for Mr. Ryan to be raped. He could tell everyone how pleasant it is.
 
2013-01-12 09:44:26 PM  
 
2013-01-12 09:46:24 PM  

2wolves: Let us arrange for Mr. Ryan to be raped. He could tell everyone how pleasant it is.


And it would be legitimate since he won't end up pregnant
 
2013-01-12 09:46:51 PM  

hubiestubert: Forget or simply drop the subject for a few decades?


I had a lengthy reply to this, but suddenly realized it didn't say anything your post hadn't already covered.
 
2013-01-12 10:09:17 PM  
Jezebel.com

Not even once.
 
2013-01-12 10:10:59 PM  

dickfreckle: hubiestubert: Forget or simply drop the subject for a few decades?

I had a lengthy reply to this, but suddenly realized it didn't say anything your post hadn't already covered.


See? I CAN do short and to the point posts...
 
2013-01-12 10:18:26 PM  

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?


The "I don't want to believe I support assholes who would do this" part, I'm guessing.
 
2013-01-12 10:40:03 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-12 10:48:02 PM  

Frank N Stein: Jezebel.com

Not even once.


The trick is to get in there and find their reference link as quickly as you can, and then get the hell out of there. Not unlike any other scouting mission. I always feel like my genitals are about to be removed when I go there.

Come to think of it, I get the same feeling at regular Gawker, too. Lifehacker is pretty cool, though.
 
2013-01-12 10:49:07 PM  
Keep farking that chicken

www.campbellfoodservice.com
 
2013-01-12 10:52:04 PM  

Somacandra: candyass


Hershey Highway?

/don't mind me i'm drunk toniht
 
2013-01-12 10:52:53 PM  
I seriously think that he's a victim of fetal alcohol syndrome. This is no garden variety of imbecility.
 
2013-01-12 10:53:04 PM  

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
 
2013-01-12 10:54:34 PM  
Jezebel's legal reporting tends to have the accuracy of the Weekly World News.

Anybody have an actual report on the bill that doesn't trace back to Jezebel?
 
2013-01-12 10:55:17 PM  

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.


Actually, I think his face is cock-punchable, which is a concept I never conceived of before him. And now we learn that he thinks sex criminals should have the right to raise children.

I change my mind. As my grandad used to say. Never hit 'em. Kick 'em. It hurts worse.
 
2013-01-12 10:55:55 PM  
Has Jezebel sunk any lower than saying the girls in the Gap "talk to the moose" ad were being exploited as sex objects?
 
2013-01-12 10:56:22 PM  

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.


Jezebel is an abortion of a website written by half-literate tittering shiatheads but I have given it 5 clicks to uphold my promise to click 5 times each time a person announces a refusal to click somewhere. You're doing more harm than good by announcing it.
 
2013-01-12 10:59:22 PM  

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


Backpfeifengesicht!
 
2013-01-12 10:59:40 PM  

BravadoGT: Here's the entire declaration from the offending act:


SEC. 2. DECLARATION. In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress' power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States-- (1) the Congress declares that-- (A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and (B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions. It seems a "bit" of a stretch to read that, and then come to the conclusion that Paul Ryan's intent is to "make sure rapists have the right to sue the raped mothers of their rape babies for custody."


Thanks. I assumed as much based on their reporting history and it's nice to see it reinforced.

fusillade762: That's odd that they single out gender like that. No protections for sexual preference or race?


Is there a history of mothers aborting gay fetii? Are race based abortions a things?
 
2013-01-12 11:01:49 PM  

Mrbogey: Jezebel's legal reporting tends to have the accuracy of the Weekly World News.

Anybody have an actual report on the bill that doesn't trace back to Jezebel?


You should punch them in the face.
 
2013-01-12 11:02:22 PM  

MisterTweak: I'm not jewish, but I've been at enough seders to remember there's a part of the hagaddah(sp?) going "without X there couldn't have been Y" and so on. There's a story of that epic scale to be made of the 1992-2012 GOP.


And it's dayenu - "it would have been enough/sufficient for us."

But yes, the R$ campaign provided voters thousands of reasons to say "Dayenu."
 
2013-01-12 11:02:45 PM  
This current crop of Republicans makes me sick to my farking stomach.  They just absolutely nauseate me.
 
2013-01-12 11:03:17 PM  

quickdraw: BravadoGT: Here's the entire declaration from the offending act:


SEC. 2. DECLARATION. In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress' power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States-- (1) the Congress declares that-- (A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and (B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions. It seems a "bit" of a stretch to read that, and then come to the conclusion that Paul Ryan's intent is to "make sure rapists have the right to sue the raped mothers of their rape babies for custody."

Well this is how Jezebel analyzed it.

"Which actually means that states would have the right to ban all abortions with no exception for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Further, in those states, if a woman was raped and wanted to have an abortion in another state, her rapist could theoretically sue her to stop the abortion, and Drum suspects that he'd probably win. "

And I can see their reasoning. Under that law the father could prevent the abortion and sue for custody. Especially in states that already give rapists paternal rights.


Oh, do go on. Please tell us which states have permitted "alleged" fathers (without test of paternity) to sue in order to prevent an abortion.

/bonus points for anyone who can explain how an individual could use the proposed statute in question to obtain an injunction when it doesn't explicitly create a private right of action.
 
2013-01-12 11:04:03 PM  

xanadian: You know who ELSE was a Republican who was really into rape?


i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-12 11:04:39 PM  

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 must not follow the derposphere much. Ryan isn't even in the top ten of most punchable republican faces.
 
2013-01-12 11:05:09 PM  
Currently, in 31 states can a convicted rapist sue for custody.
 
2013-01-12 11:06:11 PM  
Kind of makes you wonder if this workout fanatic might have some rage issues and possibly raped a woman before since he is so fascinated with it.
 
2013-01-12 11:06:30 PM  

quickdraw: And I can see their reasoning. Under that law the father could prevent the abortion and sue for custody. Especially in states that already give rapists paternal rights.


That link makes me want to hurt people.
 
2013-01-12 11:06:34 PM  

MSFT: You should punch them in the face.


So now that's the fourth time you've tried to troll me with this line.

Your trolling is obvious.
 
2013-01-12 11:08:47 PM  

skullkrusher: 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.

Jezebel is an abortion of a website written by half-literate tittering shiatheads but I have given it 5 clicks to uphold my promise to click 5 times each time a person announces a refusal to click somewhere. You're doing more harm than good by announcing it.


The way I read it, a state or territory can sue or seek an injunction to prevent an abortion, which is bad enough and terribly written. I don't see any reason to throw in some non-sense about rapists suing or whatever
 
2013-01-12 11:09:45 PM  

Mrbogey: MSFT: You should punch them in the face.

So now that's the fourth time you've tried to troll me with this line.

Your trolling is obvious.


I tend to remember people who threaten me over clean drinking water.
And then make fun of them.
 
2013-01-12 11:10:13 PM  

Coco LaFemme: This current crop of Republicans makes me sick to my farking stomach.  They just absolutely nauseate me.


That nauseous feeling is probably from the crap you consume when you blindly believe misleading Fark headlines and questionable legal analysis from biased sources.
 
2013-01-12 11:11:30 PM  

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!


It's cute that you think that. Maybe 2% of voters will hate Ryan for this, another maybe 2% will love him for it, another 20% or so probably won't remember this even happened by next week when the next distraction comes up and their little flea brains focus on that. The remaining 56% or so don't have any idea what goes on in politics at all, and just vote for whoever has the right letter next to their name, or whose name sounds likeable, or who the TV or their friends or their pastor or family or whatever tells them to vote for.

Holding politicians accountable for their actions and statements. Ha, funny.
 
2013-01-12 11:12:07 PM  
I find it highly hilarious that Paul Ryan is the go-to guy when Republicans want to point to a economic policy wonk who's all about jobs and growth, and yet here he is sponsoring a bill to give a zygote personhood.

If this would ever pass, be sure to time your pregnancies so you conceive in one year and give birth during the next, so you can declare the embryo as a dependent both years. The numbers of summer birthdays will skyrocket.
 
2013-01-12 11:14:24 PM  

quickdraw: MmmmBacon: 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.

His face is quite punchable. When the Revolution comes, while the Lawyers (and politicians) are lined up against the Wall, Paul Ryan will be set aside from the others, with a line of angry women waiting for their turn to either punch him in the face or kick him in the jumblies. A Fiver slipped to the guards gives a lady both options on her turn.

I would definitely go for the face - if only to shut him up. Besides Im not sure he has jumblies.


For five bucks, you don't have to skip the jumblies, just in case they are there.
 
2013-01-12 11:14:45 PM  

Emposter: 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!

It's cute that you think that. Maybe 2% of voters will hate Ryan for this, another maybe 2% will love him for it, another 20% or so probably won't remember this even happened by next week when the next distraction comes up and their little flea brains focus on that. The remaining 56% or so don't have any idea what goes on in politics at all, and just vote for whoever has the right letter next to their name, or whose name sounds likeable, or who the TV or their friends or their pastor or family or whatever tells them to vote for.

Holding politicians accountable for their actions and statements. Ha, funny.


Errrr....76%. Dunno how that happened.
 
2013-01-12 11:14:58 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: skullkrusher: 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.

Jezebel is an abortion of a website written by half-literate tittering shiatheads but I have given it 5 clicks to uphold my promise to click 5 times each time a person announces a refusal to click somewhere. You're doing more harm than good by announcing it.

The way I read it, a state or territory can sue or seek an injunction to prevent an abortion, which is bad enough and terribly written. I don't see any reason to throw in some non-sense about rapists suing or whatever


that's why
 
2013-01-12 11:16:59 PM  

skullkrusher: Peter von Nostrand: skullkrusher: 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.

Jezebel is an abortion of a website written by half-literate tittering shiatheads but I have given it 5 clicks to uphold my promise to click 5 times each time a person announces a refusal to click somewhere. You're doing more harm than good by announcing it.

The way I read it, a state or territory can sue or seek an injunction to prevent an abortion, which is bad enough and terribly written. I don't see any reason to throw in some non-sense about rapists suing or whatever

that's why


At least you're a half-glass full kind of person, since you said they're half-literate
 
2013-01-12 11:18:11 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: skullkrusher: Peter von Nostrand: skullkrusher: 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.

Jezebel is an abortion of a website written by half-literate tittering shiatheads but I have given it 5 clicks to uphold my promise to click 5 times each time a person announces a refusal to click somewhere. You're doing more harm than good by announcing it.

The way I read it, a state or territory can sue or seek an injunction to prevent an abortion, which is bad enough and terribly written. I don't see any reason to throw in some non-sense about rapists suing or whatever

that's why

At least you're a half-glass full kind of person, since you said they're half-literate


Hmmm.. maybe I should stop drinking now
 
2013-01-12 11:18:28 PM  

MSFT: I tend to remember people who threaten me over clean drinking water.
And then make fun of them.


You really want to gamble that nobody will follow that link and take your word for it? You weren't threatened. I identified you as a troll and you proceeded to keep trolling.
 
2013-01-12 11:19:18 PM  
(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and

So what happens when there is a conflict between the constitutional attributes and privileges of the pregnant woman and the constitutional attributes and privileges of the fetus? Flip a coin and see who wins?
 
2013-01-12 11:20:54 PM  

MmmmBacon: You have almost single-handedly given the Presidency to the Democrats until at least 2020, if not 2024


imokaywiththis.jpg

Having a bulletproof Trans Am as the official POTUS Vehicle for President Biden would be kinda awesome.
 
2013-01-12 11:21:50 PM  

Mrbogey: MSFT: I tend to remember people who threaten me over clean drinking water.
And then make fun of them.

You really want to gamble that nobody will follow that link and take your word for it? You weren't threatened. I identified you as a troll and you proceeded to keep trolling.


Oh wow. Having gone back through the various past threads that were linked, that guy appears more unstable than a prolapsed anus.
 
2013-01-12 11:22:32 PM  

MSFT: I tend to remember people who threaten me over clean drinking water.
And then make fun of them.


Get over it bro. Let it go
 
2013-01-12 11:23:31 PM  

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


He reminds me of an evil Dick York.

upload.wikimedia.orgupload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-01-12 11:26:31 PM  

quickdraw: OTOH I think Reince Priebus is a much more punchable name.


On the first read of his name it looked like "Prince Reebus" to me and it's stuck there in my skull ever since.
 
2013-01-12 11:28:19 PM  
Bugger him up the arse and ask if it's legitimate.
 
2013-01-12 11:29:31 PM  
farking scumbags.
 
2013-01-12 11:30:29 PM  
And this farktard almost became vice president.

Still smarter than Palin though . . .
 
2013-01-12 11:30:42 PM  
I used to think that "trigger warnings" were bullshiat, then I read something like this and want to find a Republican and knock his teeth out.

I see what they mean.
 
2013-01-12 11:32:07 PM  

cannotsuggestaname: what the fark is wrong with these people? I mean seriously, what is wrong?


Indeed, you'd think that after Murdoch and Akins, the head honchos in the GOP would send out some sort of message to the rest of the GOP saying "hey, lets not talk about rape in public."
 
2013-01-12 11:33:02 PM  
Asshole.
 
2013-01-12 11:35:32 PM  
images.wikia.com
 
2013-01-12 11:35:53 PM  

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


But still just big enough to be a real irritant.

/Even with lube.
 
2013-01-12 11:36:51 PM  
I went to a Catholic funeral for a ~75 year old woman today (mother of a friend). We're dead center in the middle of Kansas here. There were at least 30 beard sporting/bonnet wearing Holderman Mennonite's there for farks sake (husband was a lapsed Mennonite but never converted to Catholic for his wife). Could not be a more conservative setting.

And yet the priest still found it necessary to drop a "Isn't it great she had a long and fruitful life because her parents didn't have her aborted?"...not once but TWICE! AT A farkING FUNERAL! For a woman who, finally, mercifully, was free of the cancer that had been destroying her body for the past 2-3 years!

I can't imagine what he's spewing "to the choir", so to speak, on a week-to-week basis. Gotta be honest, sort of opened my eyes a bit.
 
2013-01-12 11:39:32 PM  

MmmmBacon: 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.

His face is quite punchable. When the Revolution comes, while the Lawyers (and politicians) are lined up against the Wall, Paul Ryan will be set aside from the others, with a line of angry women waiting for their turn to either punch him in the face or kick him in the jumblies. A Fiver slipped to the guards gives a lady both options on her turn.


I've never punched a person in my life, and I'd probably break my hand the first time I did, but I'd be willing to give Paul Ryan the honor of being my first :)

I seriously do not understand the people who think he's good looking in any way. The only youngish Republican during the 2012 campaign who was creepier was Bap Romney.
 
2013-01-12 11:39:39 PM  
As a pretty pro-choice liberal I will say I can at least under the notion that, if life begins at conception, than the whole rape and incest exception doesn't make much sense. What's just weird to me is following through positions to logical conclusions.

Every miscarriage would seem like it could be investigated as a homicide. If this sort of law is passed, would a rapist be able to get medical records to see if his victim had an abortion? If she wound up miscarrying, could he get her thrown in jail?

It'd be awesome if life was as simple as republicans seem think it is, but holy hell, we don't live in 4,000 BCE...
 
2013-01-12 11:40:12 PM  
Life begins at fertilization huh? That's going to make for some craaaaaazy census figures.
 
2013-01-12 11:42:02 PM  
I hope "Rapepublicans" catches on. They need to be made to own their love of rape.
 
2013-01-12 11:42:27 PM  
Not much of a libertarian.
 
2013-01-12 11:42:50 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: LOL, so I'm a right winger now?


I should hope that if you weren't a right-winger, you'd be intelligent enough to avoid even the possibility of being mistaken as defending this anathematic grandstanding -- which, so far, you have not avoided at all.
 
2013-01-12 11:43:24 PM  

FloydA: Of all the controversial issues they could have picked to make central to their platform, I for one, am glad that the GOP decided to become the pro-rape party.  That's a message that is sure to bring the people out to the polls in huge numbers.


Nice spin and you're all enjoying the ride I see.

The intent of the bill was to allow the biological father to be able to sue to prevent the abortion of his child, but yeah, I guess if a rapist would theoretically wanted to take on the financial responsibility for this child, the law would probably allow him to sue to prevent the abortion as well.

Yes, I totally agree and support the women's final decision on the matter but if the biological father (not usually a rapist) wanted the birth to come to full term and had the means and intent to care for the child, the bill would offer at least some recourse until a decision could be made. Contrary to popular belief, not all women are exactly the brightest stewards of their bodies (that's how some end up with unintended pregnancies in the first place), and this bill may offer enough time for cooler heads to prevail while other options to abortion are explored. The sad part of this bill is that as a biological father to be, rapists would be given the same rights as the intentional and accidental fathers would be given.

If you believe abortion is the only answer to an unwanted pregnancy- than yes, this bill is a load of horse relish.
 
2013-01-12 11:43:44 PM  

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?


I have nothing to add, as you summed it up perfectly. It's like we've gone back in time a couple thousand years. What the actual fark is up with the CONSTANT rape talk? You know, if they were constantly talking about homosexuality like this, I'd think they were closet cases. Maybe they have rape on the mind. A lot.
 
2013-01-12 11:44:59 PM  
I cannot express how creepy this whole thing is to me.

I want to say something pithy, but I'm too creeped out.
 
2013-01-12 11:45:09 PM  

James F. Campbell: Peter von Nostrand: LOL, so I'm a right winger now?

I should hope that if you weren't a right-winger, you'd be intelligent enough to avoid even the possibility of being mistaken as defending this anathematic grandstanding -- which, so far, you have not avoided at all.


yeah, intelligent people don't criticize what they view as dubious arguments - even if they agree with the purpose of the argument - for fear that morons like James F. Campbell might mistake them for supporting the target of the criticism.
 
2013-01-12 11:45:55 PM  

James F. Campbell: Peter von Nostrand: LOL, so I'm a right winger now?

I should hope that if you weren't a right-winger, you'd be intelligent enough to avoid even the possibility of being mistaken as defending this anathematic grandstanding -- which, so far, you have not avoided at all.


Do you do anything besides hate Republicans?
 
2013-01-12 11:46:19 PM  

Frank N Stein: James F. Campbell: Peter von Nostrand: LOL, so I'm a right winger now?

I should hope that if you weren't a right-winger, you'd be intelligent enough to avoid even the possibility of being mistaken as defending this anathematic grandstanding -- which, so far, you have not avoided at all.

Do you do anything besides hate Republicans?


Everyone's gotta have a hobby.
 
2013-01-12 11:46:21 PM  

clowncar on fire: FloydA: Of all the controversial issues they could have picked to make central to their platform, I for one, am glad that the GOP decided to become the pro-rape party.  That's a message that is sure to bring the people out to the polls in huge numbers.

Nice spin and you're all enjoying the ride I see.

The intent of the bill was to allow the biological father to be able to sue to prevent the abortion of his child, but yeah, I guess if a rapist would theoretically wanted to take on the financial responsibility for this child, the law would probably allow him to sue to prevent the abortion as well.

Yes, I totally agree and support the women's final decision on the matter but if the biological father (not usually a rapist) wanted the birth to come to full term and had the means and intent to care for the child, the bill would offer at least some recourse until a decision could be made. Contrary to popular belief, not all women are exactly the brightest stewards of their bodies (that's how some end up with unintended pregnancies in the first place), and this bill may offer enough time for cooler heads to prevail while other options to abortion are explored. The sad part of this bill is that as a biological father to be, rapists would be given the same rights as the intentional and accidental fathers would be given.

If you believe abortion is the only answer to an unwanted pregnancy- than yes, this bill is a load of horse relish.


You do realize the biological father can't carry that baby for 9 months. So what is your solution for compensating the mother who is being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term? Who's going to pay those medical bills, time off of work, change in lifestyle for most of a year, etc etc?
 
2013-01-12 11:46:28 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-12 11:46:30 PM  
"the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning"

Amazingly, there is a ray of light in this bill. Cloning. Most of the die hard conservatives reject cloning as contrary to nature. That is the position of the Catholic Church. http://www.americancatholic.org/News/Cloning/default.asp

So the fact that these people are willing to acknowledge that life could begin with cloning is actually rather liberal.
 
2013-01-12 11:47:21 PM  

quickdraw: FlashHarry: sure his face is punchable - but it's not reince priebus punchable.

Well I suppose it's a matter of personal taste. But that smirk on Ryan's face just makes me clench my fist. OTOH I think Reince Priebus is a much more punchable name.


Sounds like a medical condition.

Doctor says I have a reince priebus. Need an operation.
 
2013-01-12 11:48:19 PM  

quickdraw: FlashHarry: sure his face is punchable - but it's not reince priebus punchable.

Well I suppose it's a matter of personal taste. But that smirk on Ryan's face just makes me clench my fist. OTOH I think Reince Priebus is a much more punchable name.


Sean Hannity has the most punchable face in the known universe. Eric Cantor is second. Priebus and Ryan are tied for third, but if I was simul-punching, Ryan gets the left hand.

/I'm right-handed
//Next most punchable is probably Al Gore
 
2013-01-12 11:48:24 PM  

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

But still just big enough to be a real irritant.

/Even with lube.


The spines on the sides and the knife tied to the end serves as the irritant.
 
2013-01-12 11:53:34 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-12 11:55:14 PM  

FloydA: Of all the controversial issues they could have picked to make central to their platform, I for one, am glad that the GOP decided to become the pro-rape party.  That's a message that is sure to bring the people out to the polls in huge numbers.


How does a bill that allows states to ban abortions even in cases of rape amount to a "pro-rape" position???

There's nothing pro-rape about it.

You guys have lost all credibility by twisting and distorting ideas to smear the opposition. You can say the othr side does it, hope it makes you feel right with the world.
 
2013-01-12 11:57:23 PM  

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.


here i was thinking that was a masterful troll. leaving aside all the other insane derp you are spewing, you do realize that the longer the pregnancy goes on, the greater the risks and restrictions there are in a woman obtaining one, right? Like, as in days/weeks count.
 
2013-01-12 11:58:49 PM  

jayhawk88: I went to a Catholic funeral for a ~75 year old woman today (mother of a friend). We're dead center in the middle of Kansas here. There were at least 30 beard sporting/bonnet wearing Holderman Mennonite's there for farks sake (husband was a lapsed Mennonite but never converted to Catholic for his wife). Could not be a more conservative setting.

And yet the priest still found it necessary to drop a "Isn't it great she had a long and fruitful life because her parents didn't have her aborted?"...not once but TWICE! AT A farkING FUNERAL! For a woman who, finally, mercifully, was free of the cancer that had been destroying her body for the past 2-3 years!

I can't imagine what he's spewing "to the choir", so to speak, on a week-to-week basis. Gotta be honest, sort of opened my eyes a bit.


That's some sick shiat right there. I remember something similar at my grandmother's funeral, but a little different. My Grandmother had worked with lots of Indian, Japanese, and Chinese people before retirement, and a lot of them were in attendance. This jackass was badmouthing Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. during the service. I really wanted to walk up and kick that jackass square in the balls.
 
2013-01-12 11:59:51 PM  

Animatronik: FloydA: Of all the controversial issues they could have picked to make central to their platform, I for one, am glad that the GOP decided to become the pro-rape party.  That's a message that is sure to bring the people out to the polls in huge numbers.

How does a bill that allows states to ban abortions even in cases of rape amount to a "pro-rape" position???

There's nothing pro-rape about it.

You guys have lost all credibility by twisting and distorting ideas to smear the opposition. You can say the othr side does it, hope it makes you feel right with the world.


It becomes "pro-rape" as the way the bill is written, in that any biological father to be- even rapists-- would have a say in the termination of their child and the ability to block or stall the abortion of that child. The fact that it includes rapists makes it extra fun to parade as a bill specifically designed to give rapists a right to sue their victims.
 
2013-01-13 12:01:54 AM  
Wait a sec, I can clone human beings now and they'd be granted all the rights of a citizen? Good job, GOP, you've just legalized my army of clones.
 
2013-01-13 12:04:19 AM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Wait a sec, I can clone human beings now and they'd be granted all the rights of a citizen? Good job, GOP, you've just legalized my army of clones.


"I will make it legal."
 
2013-01-13 12:05:12 AM  
Paul Ryan has always seemed kind of date rapey to me.
 
2013-01-13 12:09:29 AM  
I often post this image in threads like these:

i560.photobucket.com

...but recently I've been wondering if maybe the GOP is too damn stupid to be a threat to anybody but themselves.
 
2013-01-13 12:09:30 AM  

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?
 
2013-01-13 12:10:20 AM  

Mrbogey: fusillade762: That's odd that they single out gender like that. No protections for sexual preference or race?

Is there a history of mothers aborting gay fetii? Are race based abortions a things?


Is there a history of Americans aborting fetuses of certain genders?
 
2013-01-13 12:11:01 AM  
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com

Never realized how much they looked alike.

/One's a comedian, one's a joke.
 
2013-01-13 12:11:22 AM  

fearthebunnyman: 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.

here i was thinking that was a masterful troll. leaving aside all the other insane derp you are spewing, you do realize that the longer the pregnancy goes on, the greater the risks and restrictions there are in a woman obtaining one, right? Like, as in days/weeks count.


I'm glad to be in the presence of a Ric Romero maintaining that Capt. Obvious stance. I don't believe the bill was intended to allow an abortion to be put off until the point of no return, and I'm pretty sure the legal folks understand these time constraints as well. What it does do is give both parents time to explore other options, if only a few extra hours to sit down and reason things out.

There is nothing here saying that a judge can't look at a father to be and block the suit should he prove to be psychologically, financially, or emotionally too unfit to be a parent. Should he have a compelling plan or reason for allowing the child to come to full term- then this will give him the extra time needed to at least have his say. In the end, the decision of the mother will hopefully be respected.
 
2013-01-13 12:13:12 AM  
and then everyone will win

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

Or is she going to be a moderate unlike Obama who is a left wing loon?
 
2013-01-13 12:16:29 AM  

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?


It will be a paper win only- 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, don't you think?
 
2013-01-13 12:16:51 AM  

clowncar on fire: fearthebunnyman: 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.

here i was thinking that was a masterful troll. leaving aside all the other insane derp you are spewing, you do realize that the longer the pregnancy goes on, the greater the risks and restrictions there are in a woman obtaining one, right? Like, as in days/weeks count.

I'm glad to be in the presence of a Ric Romero maintaining that Capt. Obvious stance. I don't believe the bill was intended to allow an abortion to be put off until the point of no return, and I'm pretty sure the legal folks understand these time constraints as well. What it does do is give both parents time to explore other options, if only a few extra hours to sit down and reason things out.

There is nothing here saying that a judge can't look at a father to be and block the suit should he prove to be psychologically, financially, or emotionally too unfit to be a parent. Should he have a compelling plan or reason for allowing the child to come to full term- then this will give him the extra time needed to at least have his say. In the end, the decision of the mother will hopefully be respected.


Either you are irredeemably naive (and ignorant of how the legal system works) or you are still trolling me. If its the latter, you did hook me, so congrats on that. nighters!
 
2013-01-13 12:19:18 AM  

clowncar on fire: It will be a paper win only- a woman cannot and should never be be compelled to have a child if she chooses not to.


Where does it say that?

clowncar on fire: Kind of a sick society if women were to become involuntary breeding machines, don't you think?


Given the mindset of the people who write this shait I wouldn't doubt their motivations.
 
2013-01-13 12:20:03 AM  

clowncar on fire: I don't believe the bill was intended to allow an abortion to be put off until the point of no return


Am I reading something completely different than you are?
 
2013-01-13 12:21:07 AM  
www.patentspostgrant.com

Seriously GOP - WTF?
 
2013-01-13 12:22:08 AM  
The tide is turning, and a majority of voters don't want politicians making women's health choices for them.

No, just the people who want single payer systems, and those who support ObamaCare.

So this part is correct at least... Most people don't want that.
 
2013-01-13 12:22:58 AM  

Apos: [img.rp.vhd.me image 215x125]
"If you happen to have a chatty GOP member as a passenger, ask him to do this one thing: SHUT THE FARK UP."


I love that sketch...
 
2013-01-13 12:23:04 AM  

jayhawk88: And yet the priest still found it necessary to drop a "Isn't it great she had a long and fruitful life because her parents didn't have her aborted?"...not once but TWICE! AT A farkING FUNERAL! For a woman who, finally, mercifully, was free of the cancer that had been destroying her body for the past 2-3 years!


HOLY CRAP
if the priest had done that at my mom's funeral .... FFS, would have had to beat the crap out of him
FFS
I hated my mom but still would have had to step up.

CSB
It was actually an awesome service, he REALLY knew my mom, the funeral was fun and touching.
He had some GREAT stories to tell about my mom trying to plan the funeral. Which readings, what day the funeral would be on, etc. lawl mom!!
/CSB
 
2013-01-13 12:25:05 AM  

clowncar on fire: What it does do is give both parents time to explore other options, if only a few extra hours to sit down and reason things out.


Okay, yeah, you got me, too. (I'm a sucker sometimes, but dammit, SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE THIS SH*T!)

/happy farking, etc.
 
2013-01-13 12:26:21 AM  
You have to wonder about a party that can't seem to get on the right side of the "rape issue". Or a party that even considers rape to BE an "issue". Or a party that wants to be associated with rape, PERIOD.

Conservatives are damaged human beings. Psychopaths, every one of them. At some point in the future, the Republican party will be thought of as a lunatic abberation. They'll be studied as an example of how to gain power by feeding on fear and ignorance and xenophobia. Just like the...wait for it...Nazis.
 
2013-01-13 12:28:15 AM  

Fart_Machine: clowncar on fire: It will be a paper win only- a woman cannot and should never be be compelled to have a child if she chooses not to.

Where does it say that?

clowncar on fire: Kind of a sick society if women were to become involuntary breeding machines, don't you think?

Given the mindset of the people who write this shait I wouldn't doubt their motivations.


It doesn't say that, but to be a society of choice, the woman should be given final say. Think of the suit as a "waiting period" before the final decision is made. Again, the suit should only be used a legal formality in that the father to be is given a legal audience to present his rational for allowing the child to come to full term. Regardless of the rational, the final decision of the woman is to be respected. I don't believe this law would have - nor should have-- any merit should it be in any way used as a tool to compel a woman to have an unwanted child.
 
2013-01-13 12:28:45 AM  
He's a vagina wonk. It's what he does.

/wonkwonk
 
2013-01-13 12:34:00 AM  
You Catholics are farking nuts. Every damn one of you. WTF?
 
2013-01-13 12:37:25 AM  

EvilEgg: quickdraw: FlashHarry: sure his face is punchable - but it's not reince priebus punchable.

Well I suppose it's a matter of personal taste. But that smirk on Ryan's face just makes me clench my fist. OTOH I think Reince Priebus is a much more punchable name.

Doocey has the most punch able face I've ever seen


Oh hell yeah. Even if I had never heard a word he said.

Knowing that if Dick Cheney raped a baby in Times Square, Douchey would spin it as creating jobs in the child care industry just makes it easier.
 
2013-01-13 12:38:18 AM  

fusillade762: cannotsuggestaname: what the fark is wrong with these people? I mean seriously, what is wrong?

Playing to their base and hoping nobody else remembers come election day?


They just don't realize that this thing called "the Internet" exists and works as advertised, do they?
 
2013-01-13 12:41:13 AM  

Coco LaFemme: This current crop of Republicans makes me sick to my farking stomach.  They just absolutely nauseate me.


Ya but so do regular bodily functions...

:)
 
2013-01-13 12:41:54 AM  

realmolo: You have to wonder about a party that can't seem to get on the right side of the "rape issue". Or a party that even considers rape to BE an "issue". Or a party that wants to be associated with rape, PERIOD.

Conservatives are damaged human beings. Psychopaths, every one of them. At some point in the future, the Republican party will be thought of as a lunatic abberation. They'll be studied as an example of how to gain power by feeding on fear and ignorance and xenophobia. Just like the...wait for it...Nazis.


I believe the nazi's were the ones who used the popular media to flood with untruths about others that didn't agree with their political ambitions- just like democrats.

See how that works? Anyone can say stupid stuff here on the internets. Oddly enough- the bill is about the fathers to be (not just rapists) their day in court too. Mommy may be carrying, but on many occasions, daddy and mommy were in mutual agreement on how that baby got there. When this is the case, shouldn't daddy at least have some say. That's all this bill really is: a chance for daddy to get his say as well: not as a tool for rapists to harrass their victims. It's about the rights of both parties involved in the pregnancy.

But i will agree- should this law be used in any way to compel a woman to have a child she does not want to bring to full term- than yes: they can burn it now.

Reading comprehension- how's that work again.
 
2013-01-13 12:42:33 AM  

DeaH: 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.

Actually, I think his face is cock-punchable, which is a concept I never conceived of before him. And now we learn that he thinks sex criminals should have the right to raise children.

I change my mind. As my grandad used to say. Never hit 'em. Kick 'em. It hurts worse.


Even the right wingers I know who hate on me for voting Obama agree he is punchable.
 
2013-01-13 12:42:50 AM  

clowncar on fire: Fart_Machine: clowncar on fire: It will be a paper win only- a woman cannot and should never be be compelled to have a child if she chooses not to.

Where does it say that?

clowncar on fire: Kind of a sick society if women were to become involuntary breeding machines, don't you think?

Given the mindset of the people who write this shait I wouldn't doubt their motivations.

It doesn't say that, but to be a society of choice, the woman should be given final say. Think of the suit as a "waiting period" before the final decision is made. Again, the suit should only be used a legal formality in that the father to be is given a legal audience to present his rational for allowing the child to come to full term. Regardless of the rational, the final decision of the woman is to be respected. I don't believe this law would have - nor should have-- any merit should it be in any way used as a tool to compel a woman to have an unwanted child.


So you're talking about something other than what the bill is supposed to do. If they wanted a mandatory "cooling off" or waiting period they wouldn't have attempted to classify all life beginning at fertilization or give fathers legal action to stop the abortion.
 
2013-01-13 12:43:45 AM  
Anyone bothered by the fact this really doesn't do any of the things claimed? Anyone at all?

Yeah, well have fun. Remember last one to cum eats the cracker.
 
2013-01-13 12:45:07 AM  

Fart_Machine: clowncar on fire: Fart_Machine: clowncar on fire: It will be a paper win only- a woman cannot and should never be be compelled to have a child if she chooses not to.

Where does it say that?

clowncar on fire: Kind of a sick society if women were to become involuntary breeding machines, don't you think?

Given the mindset of the people who write this shait I wouldn't doubt their motivations.

It doesn't say that, but to be a society of choice, the woman should be given final say. Think of the suit as a "waiting period" before the final decision is made. Again, the suit should only be used a legal formality in that the father to be is given a legal audience to present his rational for allowing the child to come to full term. Regardless of the rational, the final decision of the woman is to be respected. I don't believe this law would have - nor should have-- any merit should it be in any way used as a tool to compel a woman to have an unwanted child.

So you're talking about something other than what the bill is supposed to do. If they wanted a mandatory "cooling off" or waiting period they wouldn't have attempted to classify all life beginning at fertilization or give fathers legal action to stop the abortion.


I'm presenting the bill in the only way it could ever stand a chance in passing. If it could be used as a tool to block an abortion and forces the mother to carry the child to full term- I hope to god it never passes.
 
2013-01-13 12:45:23 AM  

clowncar on fire: When this is the case, shouldn't daddy at least have some say.


No. It's not his body that is required to go through approximately 40 weeks of physiological and neurological changes that requires at some point almost every aspect of day-to-day life to be adjusted to accommodate those changes and end that length of time with an event that carries with it a non-negligible risk of death.
 
2013-01-13 12:46:43 AM  

Johnny Swank: You Catholics are farking nuts. Every damn one of you. WTF?


That's not entirely fair. My family is catholic and not a single one of them would agree with this idiocy about rape.

Not all catholics are batshiat insane about rape and abortion. The leadership, perhaps, but not all of the laymen.
 
2013-01-13 12:47:45 AM  
The Republicans have forgotten that all pregnancies start from rape, haven't they?
 
2013-01-13 12:49:01 AM  

heinekenftw: The leadership, perhaps, but not all of the laymen.


Why would people stay with an organization that's leadership is batsh*t insane? It isn't particularly difficult to stop affiliating with one church and go to another.
 
2013-01-13 12:50:56 AM  

Frank N Stein: James F. Campbell: Peter von Nostrand: LOL, so I'm a right winger now?

I should hope that if you weren't a right-winger, you'd be intelligent enough to avoid even the possibility of being mistaken as defending this anathematic grandstanding -- which, so far, you have not avoided at all.

Do you do anything besides hate Republicans?


It's a very worthy activity.
 
2013-01-13 12:51:17 AM  

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."
 
2013-01-13 12:52:53 AM  

FloydA: I for one, am glad that the GOP decided to become the pro-rape party.


It probably is a favorite past time for the base. You have the business wing raping us economically, and and the "values" wing reasserts male social control of their women.
 
2013-01-13 12:54:45 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-13 12:59:58 AM  

clowncar on fire: Oddly enough- the bill is about the fathers to be (not just rapists) their day in court too. Mommy may be carrying, but on many occasions, daddy and mommy were in mutual agreement on how that baby got there. When this is the case, shouldn't daddy at least have some say. That's all this bill really is: a chance for daddy to get his say as well: not as a tool for rapists to harrass their victims. It's about the rights of both parties involved in the pregnancy.

But i will agree- should this law be used in any way to compel a woman to have a child she does not want to bring to full term- than yes: they can burn it now.

Reading comprehension- how's that work again.


Yes, nice try, but that's the only way these bills have ever been brought before court. Not for rapists necessarily; but to compel a woman to bring a child she does not want to term...and that's just about the only reason for having these asinine laws. Here's why:

Even under the current abortion laws (Roe/Casey) there is a fairly narrow window in which a woman can even have a legal and safe abortion, once she knows she's pregnant. Amazing early pregnancy tests aside, she can only legally get an abortion until the fetus is "viable", usually about 25 weeks in most states. Assuming she's like most of us and doesn't figure it out till the fourth or fifth week when she misses a period, that gives her 20 weeks (five months) to get an abortion.

That seems like a long time until you know the glacial pace of the US Superior Court System. If the woman goes to court tomorrow to notice the father she's going to get an abortion and he wants his day in court, the calendar will be set usually for one month from the date of filing. Assuming daddy shows up, now there is only four months....but let's say dad doesn't show up. If this law is to give him a due process right to be heard and the bill says he MUST be given a right, the court will reschedule for the next available date, which could be another month. Go on long enough, and suddenly it's a moot point--mom has to have the baby because she missed her window for the abortion.

Now, if the law is written so that if dad misses his first hearing, its a default ruling for mom, then maybe...but I've never seen the law written that way. It's always been that the father has an absolute right to block the abortion unless he waives it; which is why these laws are always overruled.
 
2013-01-13 01:01:50 AM  

heinekenftw: Johnny Swank: You Catholics are farking nuts. Every damn one of you. WTF?

That's not entirely fair. My family is catholic and not a single one of them would agree with this idiocy about rape.

Not all catholics are batshiat insane about rape and abortion. The leadership, perhaps, but not all of the laymen.


Sorry Chief, but that doesn't fly. You're (or your family members) are choosing to join, support, and (financially) endorse the organization that actively supports this sort of shiat (along with actively hiding kiddie farkers.) That is some farked up stuff, and I pity them if they're too god damn weak to leave. Fark em.
 
2013-01-13 01:02:28 AM  
Oh crap, it's actually called the Sanctity of Human Life Act? How terribly Orwellian.

I'm not sure which is stronger now, the urge to punch Paul Ryan's face in that pic with the article, or the urge to bathe after reading this crap.
 
2013-01-13 01:02:53 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-13 01:02:56 AM  
farker looks like a Muppet.
 
2013-01-13 01:03:38 AM  
Sorry Subby, I see nothing in the article about suing for custody. I do see a part where a rapist could sue(and probably win) to keep one of his victims from getting an abortion, which is heinous, but nothing about the custody thing.

If you're going to cite something in your headline, TFA hasn't actually contain that something, it's pretty lame to expect everyone to try and find the part you're citing when it's not contained in TFA.

And to think about all of the people who do this right and DON'T get a green...
 
2013-01-13 01:04:52 AM  

skullkrusher: I have given it 5 clicks to uphold my promise to click 5 times each time a person announces a refusal to click somewhere.


Small gift, big smile.
 
2013-01-13 01:12:27 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!


The scary part is, he's more well liked that Mitt was and would probably have a better chance at the presidency. The even scarier part is the fact that he isn't a fringe GOP candidate, he is a moderate voice of the GOP party.
 
2013-01-13 01:13:38 AM  

Gyrfalcon: clowncar on fire: Oddly enough- the bill is about the fathers to be (not just rapists) their day in court too. Mommy may be carrying, but on many occasions, daddy and mommy were in mutual agreement on how that baby got there. When this is the case, shouldn't daddy at least have some say. That's all this bill really is: a chance for daddy to get his say as well: not as a tool for rapists to harrass their victims. It's about the rights of both parties involved in the pregnancy.

But i will agree- should this law be used in any way to compel a woman to have a child she does not want to bring to full term- than yes: they can burn it now.

Reading comprehension- how's that work again.

Yes, nice try, but that's the only way these bills have ever been brought before court. Not for rapists necessarily; but to compel a woman to bring a child she does not want to term...and that's just about the only reason for having these asinine laws. Here's why:

Even under the current abortion laws (Roe/Casey) there is a fairly narrow window in which a woman can even have a legal and safe abortion, once she knows she's pregnant. Amazing early pregnancy tests aside, she can only legally get an abortion until the fetus is "viable", usually about 25 weeks in most states. Assuming she's like most of us and doesn't figure it out till the fourth or fifth week when she misses a period, that gives her 20 weeks (five months) to get an abortion.

That seems like a long time until you know the glacial pace of the US Superior Court System. If the woman goes to court tomorrow to notice the father she's going to get an abortion and he wants his day in court, the calendar will be set usually for one month from the date of filing. Assuming daddy shows up, now there is only four months....but let's say dad doesn't show up. If this law is to give him a due process right to be heard and the bill says he MUST be given a right, the court will reschedule for the next available date, which could be another mo ...


Sort of a catch 22 as they may seek to block an abortion, I don't think they can compel a woman to hav a child.

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.
 
2013-01-13 01:14:43 AM  
It's just grandstanding and everyone that spreads this (even Jezebell) is just giving them attention. It would not get signed by Obama and they do not have enough votes to override it.
 
2013-01-13 01:16:37 AM  
By their reasoning, shouldn't the body have shut that shiat down, preventing a pregnancy?

Let's face it, they have no reason, they are just pro-rapist. I have no idea why, but they are.
 
2013-01-13 01:18:45 AM  

Frank N Stein: Coco LaFemme: This current crop of Republicans makes me sick to my farking stomach.  They just absolutely nauseate me.

That nauseous feeling is probably from the crap you consume when you blindly believe misleading Fark headlines and questionable legal analysis from biased sources.


And then I remember that the state of Virginia was unequivocally going to legally permit every woman seeking an abortion to have a plastic wand rammed up her vagina, and I remind myself that there is no possible degree of bias that could transcend reality.

/they really are as abhorrent as any Fark headline could portray them
 
2013-01-13 01:21:01 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!
 
2013-01-13 01:22:18 AM  

randomjsa: The tide is turning, and a majority of voters don't want politicians making women's health choices for them.

No, just the people who want single payer systems, and those who support ObamaCare.

So this part is correct at least... Most people don't want that


Are you ever not a giant tool?
 
2013-01-13 01:23:46 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-13 01:25:16 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!


You wear your name well- don't change a thing.
 
2013-01-13 01:25:30 AM  

Alphakronik: The even scarier part is the fact that he isn't a fringe GOP candidate, he is a moderate voice of the GOP party.


No, he's a fringe candidate who everybody pretends is a moderate voice. He's a religious zealot and an Ayn Rand fellater, one of the few nutbars who manages to fit comfortably under both the Tea Party Republican and Libertarian Republican labels.
 
2013-01-13 01:27:20 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Alphakronik: The even scarier part is the fact that he isn't a fringe GOP candidate, he is a moderate voice of the GOP party.

No, he's a fringe candidate who everybody pretends is a moderate voice. He's a religious zealot and an Ayn Rand fellater, one of the few nutbars who manages to fit comfortably under both the Tea Party Republican and Libertarian Republican labels.


Agreed. It would be nice if would could get a leash on people like this. Seems the dumbest ones always have the loudest microphones.
 
2013-01-13 01:28:01 AM  
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.
 
2013-01-13 01:30:01 AM  
I like listening to Republicans talk. It makes it so much easier to laugh at anyone who claims to vote for those ignorant lunatics.

Just die off already. Sane America doesn't want you. Grab your goddamn guns and go hide in the woods like you want.
 
2013-01-13 01:31:39 AM  

randomjsa: The tide is turning, and a majority of voters don't want politicians making women's health choices for them.

No, just the people who want single payer systems, and those who support ObamaCare.

So this part is correct at least... Most people don't want that.


You should write a letter to the Republican caucus to do something about Obamacre.

Maybe the 35th time's a charm.
 
2013-01-13 01:32:38 AM  

Superjoe: By their reasoning, shouldn't the body have shut that shiat down, preventing a pregnancy?

Let's face it, they have no reason, they are just pro-rapist. I have no idea why, but they are.


You're not allowed to kill a person who is accused of rape. Help! Anti-murder laws are pro-rapist! Everything one does is pro-rapist if you spin it hard enough.
 
2013-01-13 01:33:44 AM  
Thank you subby for using the term I've been trying to coin for the past few months. I hope it takes off and helps to destroy those scumbags
 
2013-01-13 01:34:57 AM  

Confabulat: Just die off already. Sane America doesn't want you.


On the actuarial life tables, where do you think you fall in relation to Paul Ryan?
 
2013-01-13 01:37:03 AM  

Mrbogey: Confabulat: Just die off already. Sane America doesn't want you.

On the actuarial life tables, where do you think you fall in relation to Paul Ryan?


I'm surprised I've lived as long as I have. Point to Ryan.
 
2013-01-13 01:38:04 AM  

Mrbogey: Confabulat: Just die off already. Sane America doesn't want you.

On the actuarial life tables, where do you think you fall in relation to Paul Ryan?


Jebus Christ, he didn't even mention Ryan, you farking genius.

The white-haired, frightened, bigoted asshats that keep that sorry party deeply committed to recreating the dark ages is who he's talking about.

Not that I speak for Confabulat, but I'm pretty sure that's who he meant.
 
2013-01-13 01:38:40 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: Thank you subby for using the term I've been trying to coin for the past few months. I hope it takes off and helps to destroy those scumbags


Uh huh... you coined the term. You're a regular Steve Allen
 
2013-01-13 01:40:31 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Jebus Christ, he didn't even mention Ryan, you farking genius.


Well it is the guy "who is talking" that the thread is about.
 
2013-01-13 01:42:56 AM  
It really seems that the GOP had decided to absolutely wrong on everything.


Personally I think the only thing a rapist should get if they got their victim with child is a bill. No mercy should be given to them and the only role in that child's life they should ever have is to be a name on a check.
 
2013-01-13 01:42:57 AM  

Confabulat: I like listening to Republicans talk. It makes it so much easier to laugh at anyone who claims to vote for those ignorant lunatics.

Just die off already. Sane America doesn't want you. Grab your goddamn guns and go hide in the woods like you want.


You hear only what you want to hear as long as it supports your beliefs. Not all republicans are gun happy or even care to own a gun. We just have a little more respect for that ammedment that allows us to possess a gun. Does it make us any better than you? Prolly not, but it doesn't bunch up our panties as much as it seems to bunch up yours.

Live in the woods- I thought that was the fare of tree huggers. The irony of the whole thing is I hear far more threat of violence and banishment- aside from the general frothy hate-- from the anti-gun nutters than the gun lubbers.
 
2013-01-13 01:46:19 AM  
This...

clowncar on fire: You hear only what you want to hear as long as it supports your beliefs.


was followed by this...

clowncar on fire: The irony of the whole thing is I hear far more threat of violence and banishment- aside from the general frothy hate-- from the anti-gun nutters than the gun lubbers.


and was said without a hint of irony.
 
2013-01-13 01:46:59 AM  
No what it does is let them sue to stop an abortion. That thing you said subby is a lot less crazy.
 
2013-01-13 01:47:55 AM  
ok. maybe not irony. maybe just good old fashioned hypocrisy.
 
2013-01-13 01:50:35 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: Thank you subby for using the term I've been trying to coin for the past few months. I hope it takes off and helps to destroy those scumbags


So you're basically running on a platform of name-calling. Poli-schill 101. How very sophmoric and everything that is wrong with politics today. Spin it and run with it likes it's the truth. At least you're giving the Bush option a break for a while so you got that going for you.
 
2013-01-13 01:52:48 AM  

Mrbogey: Lionel Mandrake: Jebus Christ, he didn't even mention Ryan, you farking genius.

Well it is the guy "who is talking" that the thread is about.


Take another (or a first) look at the part you left out of your response:

I like listening to Republicans talk. It makes it so much easier to laugh at anyone who claims to vote for those ignorant lunatics.

Now, combine that with the first.

Just die off already. Sane America doesn't want you. Grab your goddamn guns and go hide in the woods like you want.

"Just die off already" seems to indicate that he is talking to someone who is - according to actuary tables - near death.  This means old people.  I guess it could mean people with tertiary syphilis, but I'm going with old people.

These old people are the Republican he laughs at.

Why?  Because they vote for ignorant lunatics.

Who are these ignorant lunatics, you ask?  Why, Paul Ryan and others like him.

Ergo:  Hurry up and die old people who vote for lunatics like Paul Ryan.

But, you read: YOU GO TO HELL PAUL RYAN!  YOU GO TO HELL AND YOU DIE!!1!

Then retort with a "he'll outlive you, huh huh huh"

Reading comprehension: it has a good for you!

Anyway, that's how I read it.
 
2013-01-13 01:53:48 AM  

clowncar on fire: Confabulat: I like listening to Republicans talk. It makes it so much easier to laugh at anyone who claims to vote for those ignorant lunatics.

Just die off already. Sane America doesn't want you. Grab your goddamn guns and go hide in the woods like you want.

You hear only what you want to hear as long as it supports your beliefs. Not all republicans are gun happy or even care to own a gun. We just have a little more respect for that ammedment that allows us to possess a gun. Does it make us any better than you? Prolly not, but it doesn't bunch up our panties as much as it seems to bunch up yours.

Live in the woods- I thought that was the fare of tree huggers. The irony of the whole thing is I hear far more threat of violence and banishment- aside from the general frothy hate-- from the anti-gun nutters than the gun lubbers.


All I hear from Republicans is ignorant, backwoods, paranoid cowardly superstitious bullshiat. I wouldn't trust a Republican to watch my cat, because I don't trust their mental stability. I might trust one to balance my bank account though, because money is really important in their world. And ignorance.
 
2013-01-13 01:54:21 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-13 01:54:58 AM  
Name one thing Republicans stand for in the science or academic fields they can be proud of.

one.
 
2013-01-13 01:55:35 AM  

Confabulat: I might trust one to balance my bank account though,


I wouldn't
 
2013-01-13 01:58:39 AM  
i14.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-13 02:03:32 AM  

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?
 
2013-01-13 02:04:15 AM  
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.
 
2013-01-13 02:04:49 AM  

Fart_Machine: Life begins at fertilization huh? That's going to make for some craaaaaazy census figures.


Get your lib nonsence out of here. Life begins as soon as I have a "semi."
 
2013-01-13 02:04:51 AM  

clowncar on fire: The irony of the whole thing is I hear far more threat of violence and banishment- aside from the general frothy hate-- from the anti-gun nutters than the gun lubbers.


Yeah, I remember when those anti-gun nutters threatened to kill people, or start a revolution.

"You can have my granola when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!"
 
2013-01-13 02:06:03 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-13 02:10:09 AM  

clowncar on fire: 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?


yet these whiny libs just gotta complain about it. am I right? pffft...it's only something like 32000 rape babies a year. split milk.
 
2013-01-13 02:11:12 AM  

Mrbogey: Smeggy Smurf: Thank you subby for using the term I've been trying to coin for the past few months. I hope it takes off and helps to destroy those scumbags

Uh huh... you coined the term. You're a regular Steve Allen


Great minds think alike. You should join us.
 
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.
 
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.
 
2013-01-13 10:44:08 AM  

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


Which brings up a good point. I would expect men to be very concerned that abortion remain legal and available so they don't end up paying child support for a pregnancy that neither parent wants.
 
2013-01-13 10:45:36 AM  

FloydA: Of all the controversial issues they could have picked to make central to their platform, I for one, am glad that the GOP decided to become the pro-rape party.  That's a message that is sure to bring the people out to the polls in huge numbers.


How many times do I have to keep repeating this.

The GOP is NOT pro-rape. Republicans are clear that rape is bad. Their point is that no matter how bad rape is, abortion is always worse.
 
2013-01-13 10:50:41 AM  

Flaming Yawn: Republicans are clear that rape is bad.


... When?
 
2013-01-13 10:54:51 AM  

Flaming Yawn: FloydA: Of all the controversial issues they could have picked to make central to their platform, I for one, am glad that the GOP decided to become the pro-rape party.  That's a message that is sure to bring the people out to the polls in huge numbers.

How many times do I have to keep repeating this.

The GOP is NOT pro-rape. Republicans are clear that rape is bad. Their point is that no matter how bad rape is, abortion is always worse.


Only rape rape is bad. Rape is fine, and overseas rape rape is fine. Moreover, they frequently oppose efforts to help slave trade victims and spousal abuse victims. They try to shut down clinics and flat out lie to support their side.

Preponderance of evidence says they don't care about women or rape, but are JUST barely intelligent enough to pay lip service to the idea that rape is bad to keep their jobs.
 
2013-01-13 10:56:17 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Flaming Yawn: Republicans are clear that rape is bad.

... When?


He also thinks people saying things like "I am not racist but blacks should stick to their own kind" aren't racist.

Because hey, they clearly said so.
 
2013-01-13 11:24:54 AM  
Why they haven't pulled the doublethink "Clear Skies" move and just renamed the bill "Sanctity of Women's Bodies Act" is beyond me. Did they lose a page from the old playbook?
 
2013-01-13 11:31:03 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: I'm looking for YOUR explanation as to why a man doesn't have rights pre-childbirth as opposed to post.


children are not possessions
no one has any rights to possess people
the father only has responsibilities

oh wait
you said pre-childbirth
none
no rights, nor responsibilities
he does not possess the woman and has no control over her. period.
 
2013-01-13 11:31:09 AM  
No man has the right to tell a woman she must stay pregnant against her will
 
2013-01-13 11:33:06 AM  

cannotsuggestaname: what the fark is wrong with these people? I mean seriously, what is wrong?


Nothing. They are playing their role to a T. This is part of the plan to push you to the left, where you will be more accepting(as you already are) and even defensive of shiatty policy written by the "right", and pushed further forward by the "left".
 
2013-01-13 11:34:10 AM  

quickdraw: B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood;


"See the really hardcore people will tell you life begins at fertilization. Fertilization, when the sperm fertilizes the egg. Which is usually a few moments after the man says "Gee, honey, I was going to pull out but the phone rang and it startled me." But even after the egg is fertilized, it's still six or seven days before it reaches the uterus and pregnancy begins, and not every egg makes it that far. Eighty percent of a woman's fertilized eggs are rinsed and flushed out of her body once a month during those delightful few days she has. They wind up on sanitary napkins, and yet they are fertilized eggs. So basically what these anti-abortion people are telling us is that any woman who's had more than more than one period is a serial killer!"

/Carlin was telling these farkers off 20 years ago, back when he didn't vote.
//He can't vote now, either (except in Chicago), but his words still ring true.
 
2013-01-13 11:39:28 AM  
WTF is wrong with you, Republican Party?

Stop being jerks.
 
2013-01-13 11:47:26 AM  
The dam of derp is already broken. The idiot water is gonna flood the place.
 
2013-01-13 11:51:41 AM  

Smackledorfer: He also thinks people saying things like "I am not racist but blacks should stick to their own kind" aren't racist. Because hey, they clearly said so.


Ah, more food for my ignore list, then? Works for me. :P

namatad: he does not possess the woman and has no control over her. period.


... Nor should he have any control over her lack of a period.

/Ba-dum-tssh.
 
2013-01-13 12:03:25 PM  

s2s2s2: cannotsuggestaname: what the fark is wrong with these people? I mean seriously, what is wrong?

Nothing. They are playing their role to a T. This is part of the plan to push you to the left, where you will be more accepting(as you already are) and even defensive of shiatty policy written by the "right", and pushed further forward by the "left".


What?

Seriously, read what you wrote again, then go outside for a bit.
 
2013-01-13 12:15:55 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: Not much of a libertarian.


While I personally think libertarians have an overly-idealized view of themselves/their ideology applied to real life (mostly my flimsy rationale for responding to this post), it's not unfair at all to call Ryan for his obvious sucking up to GOP mainstream elite here (at least I hope he's not such a sociopath as to believe what he's saying otherwise).
 
2013-01-13 12:16:13 PM  

s2s2s2: cannotsuggestaname: what the fark is wrong with these people? I mean seriously, what is wrong?

Nothing. They are playing their role to a T. This is part of the plan to push you to the left, where you will be more accepting(as you already are) and even defensive of shiatty policy written by the "right", and pushed further forward by the "left".


So in your mind the GOP is trying to be as radical as they can to make the people vote for the Democrats? ??

That is the stupidest conspiracy theory I have ever heard. Stupider than burghers and troothers. Seriously.
 
2013-01-13 12:32:35 PM  
I keep on saying, the only way conservatives reproduce is through rape. Being against rape is being against the lives of conservatives.

Besides, the more rapes they promote, the more children they can kill in elementary schools.

That's the problem in the US today, too many people are against Republican morals.
 
2013-01-13 12:44:09 PM  
Fun fact: The Wiki page for the GOP's recent propensity for rapey ridiculousness is about 4000 words long, while the page for the War on Women in a more general sense is about 3000 words long. Together, they're the same length as the page on the Party's entire history since its founding in 1854, which is about 7000 words long.

But don't you dare call them rapists.
 
2013-01-13 12:46:49 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Fun fact: The Wiki page for the GOP's recent propensity for rapey ridiculousness is about 4000 words long, while the page for the War on Women in a more general sense is about 3000 words long. Together, they're the same length as the page on the Party's entire history since its founding in 1854, which is about 7000 words long.

But don't you dare call them rapists.


The men most certainly are rapists, if they have sex with women.
 
2013-01-13 12:58:07 PM  

clowncar on fire: FloydA: Of all the controversial issues they could have picked to make central to their platform, I for one, am glad that the GOP decided to become the pro-rape party.  That's a message that is sure to bring the people out to the polls in huge numbers.

Nice spin and you're all enjoying the ride I see.

The intent of the bill was to allow the biological father to be able to sue to prevent the abortion of his child, but yeah, I guess if a rapist would theoretically wanted to take on the financial responsibility for this child, the law would probably allow him to sue to prevent the abortion as well.

Yes, I totally agree and support the women's final decision on the matter but if the biological father (not usually a rapist) wanted the birth to come to full term and had the means and intent to care for the child, the bill would offer at least some recourse until a decision could be made. Contrary to popular belief, not all women are exactly the brightest stewards of their bodies (that's how some end up with unintended pregnancies in the first place), and this bill may offer enough time for cooler heads to prevail while other options to abortion are explored. The sad part of this bill is that as a biological father to be, rapists would be given the same rights as the intentional and accidental fathers would be given.

If you believe abortion is the only answer to an unwanted pregnancy- than yes, this bill is a load of horse relish.


I'm hoping you'd be happy to let your ideas sit by the wayside and not be put into law until there is such a time that a fetus can be removed with little to no risk to either the mother and/or fetus and then the fetus is placed into some sort of Borg-like maturation chamber (until fetus is ready for otherwise natural birth) otherwise this is equal level dickery.
 
2013-01-13 01:06:32 PM  

cryinoutloud: I'd like to hear your argument for giving custody of a newborn baby to someone other than the mother, if she's fit.


Too far.
Because accepting, taking, and acting on the responsibility of being a parent isn't the sole domain of women.
Because being irresponsible, immature, or selfish isn't the sole domain of men.
Because having two active, caring, loving and involved parents is in the best interest of the child.


LeoffDaGrate:
I'm looking for YOUR explanation as to why a man doesn't have rights pre-childbirth as opposed to post.

Because slavery is wrong.
And illegal.
 
2013-01-13 01:07:38 PM  

justtray: But to simply say a that a man has NO rights towards the future existence of another human being.


Oh, and a fetus is not a child/person.
 
2013-01-13 01:08:18 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Seriously


There's your problem.
 
2013-01-13 01:09:08 PM  

log_jammin: Seriously


I see you have the same problem as cameron.
 
2013-01-13 01:14:50 PM  
Ryan's derp level just went way way past 9000. *crushes scouter like the 49ers crushed the Packers*
 
2013-01-13 01:19:41 PM  

jayhawk88: I went to a Catholic funeral for a ~75 year old woman today (mother of a friend). We're dead center in the middle of Kansas here. There were at least 30 beard sporting/bonnet wearing Holderman Mennonite's there for farks sake (husband was a lapsed Mennonite but never converted to Catholic for his wife). Could not be a more conservative setting.

And yet the priest still found it necessary to drop a "Isn't it great she had a long and fruitful life because her parents didn't have her aborted?"...not once but TWICE! AT A farkING FUNERAL! For a woman who, finally, mercifully, was free of the cancer that had been destroying her body for the past 2-3 years!

I can't imagine what he's spewing "to the choir", so to speak, on a week-to-week basis. Gotta be honest, sort of opened my eyes a bit.


Some clergy are insufferable. At my cousin's wedding, the priest (she was Lutheran but married a Catholic) manage to work *into the wedding* the vital information that he'd met the Pope.

At my uncle's funeral, the Baptist minister slipped in that my uncle was a "Prodigal Son" who'd come to Jesus "at the 11th hour."

I would haunt anyone who brought abortion into my funeral.
 
2013-01-13 01:21:24 PM  

wjmorris3: Fluorescent Testicle: Fun fact: The Wiki page for the GOP's recent propensity for rapey ridiculousness is about 4000 words long, while the page for the War on Women in a more general sense is about 3000 words long. Together, they're the same length as the page on the Party's entire history since its founding in 1854, which is about 7000 words long.

But don't you dare call them rapists.

The men most certainly are rapists, if they have sex with women.


wjmorris3, hat about women who perpetuate sexual acts towards men? That's totally cool right? I was thinking about commiting an act later!
 
2013-01-13 01:22:21 PM  
What even....*sigh* been a sucky week.
 
2013-01-13 01:23:56 PM  

DrZiffle: Bugger him up the arse and ask if it's legitimate.


I think I'd ask him how many pumps does it take to get to the center of a legitimate arse rape

Ahh, 1; Ahh 2; Ahh 3.....3
 
2013-01-13 01:24:33 PM  
LouDobbsAwaaaay: That said, this bill is horrendous and should never be seriously considered by legislators in a civilized country.

Are you taking a swipe at my beloved USA?
Look, just because we are the only industrialized country that doesn't have universal heath care;
and just because certain religions want to force the public to perform the rites of their beliefs in public facilities and and on the public dime;
and just because we have a large and vocal group of terrified troglodytes who threaten riot and revolution over any sensible limitation on, public accountability for, or regulation of privately held firearms;
and just because corporations are treated as persons under the law with rights, but no concomitant responsibilities;
and just because another large and vocal group want to teach theology as science, and believe in folk tales and magic over science;
and just because a group values a fetus over living, breathing human beings - so much so that they would relegate women to the status of property of a fetus, a male partner, or even a rapist;
and just because a loud and vocal group are calling for an end to all forms public assistance and legal protections for the poor, disabled, hungry, needy, old, mentally ill, vulnerable, and young;
and just because these idiots play any role, let alone a significant one in shaping our public policy does not mean that ours isn't a civiliz...
Oh.
Wait.
*hangs head in shame and mortification*
 
2013-01-13 01:24:47 PM  
so you mean another day that ends in "Y"?
 
2013-01-13 01:25:26 PM  

Richard Freckle: DrZiffle: Bugger him up the arse and ask if it's legitimate.

I think I'd ask him how many pumps does it take to get to the center of a legitimate arse rape

Ahh, 1; Ahh 2; Ahh 3.....3


He'd just P90X your dick off.
 
2013-01-13 01:35:20 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: LouDobbsAwaaaay: That said, this bill is horrendous and should never be seriously considered by legislators in a civilized country.

Are you taking a swipe at my beloved USA?
Look, just because we are the only industrialized country that doesn't have universal heath care;
and just because certain religions want to force the public to perform the rites of their beliefs in public facilities and and on the public dime;
and just because we have a large and vocal group of terrified troglodytes who threaten riot and revolution over any sensible limitation on, public accountability for, or regulation of privately held firearms;
and just because corporations are treated as persons under the law with rights, but no concomitant responsibilities;
and just because another large and vocal group want to teach theology as science, and believe in folk tales and magic over science;
and just because a group values a fetus over living, breathing human beings - so much so that they would relegate women to the status of property of a fetus, a male partner, or even a rapist;
and just because a loud and vocal group are calling for an end to all forms public assistance and legal protections for the poor, disabled, hungry, needy, old, mentally ill, vulnerable, and young;
and just because these idiots play any role, let alone a significant one in shaping our public policy does not mean that ours isn't a civiliz...
Oh.
Wait.
*hangs head in shame and mortification*


Notice that I didn't mention abstinence-only sex "education" and the obvious consequences with respect to unintended pregnancies and the spread of STIs.

/Because that would be kicking a man when he's down.
 
2013-01-13 01:50:02 PM  

Aello: wjmorris3: Fluorescent Testicle: Fun fact: The Wiki page for the GOP's recent propensity for rapey ridiculousness is about 4000 words long, while the page for the War on Women in a more general sense is about 3000 words long. Together, they're the same length as the page on the Party's entire history since its founding in 1854, which is about 7000 words long.

But don't you dare call them rapists.

The men most certainly are rapists, if they have sex with women.

wjmorris3, hat about women who perpetuate sexual acts towards men? That's totally cool right? I was thinking about commiting an act later!


And if a woman perpetuates an act on a man, the man should be charged with rape. Men Potential rapists need to learn that the answer is always no, regardless of circumstances.
 
2013-01-13 01:55:35 PM  

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


data.whicdn.com
 
2013-01-13 01:56:50 PM  
Not that I support the GOP on anything related to rape but the article says that his bill would allow them to sue to stop the woman from crossing state lines to have an abortion not that they can sue for custody.

No amount of outrage or absurdity would be lost by at least getting the headline correct.

/Yes yes I know... welcome to fark
 
2013-01-13 02:19:36 PM  

FloydA: Of all the controversial issues they could have picked to make central to their platform, I for one, am glad that the GOP decided to become the pro-rape party.  That's a message that is sure to bring the people out to the polls in huge numbers.


And they keep wondering why 99% of non-white males don't vote for them...
 
2013-01-13 02:21:54 PM  
i915.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-13 02:27:04 PM  
I have really, really come to abhor the term "Pro Life". The people that describe themselves as such are predominantly not in favor of life; they're just against abortion.

In fact, they are so ridiculously, stubbornly, stupidly against abortion to the extent where they would much rather empower rapists through the legal system than allow a rape victim to have one. Think about that for a second: Republicans are aiming to give rapists more protection under the legal system than the rape victims. I mean, that is their ultimate goal - no abortions, no exceptions. Even if it means forcing an already traumatized rape victim to carry through a pregnancy that was the result of sexual molestation.

It's sick, deranged policy making and I hope that not just liberals, but Americans in general remember this shiat for the mid-terms and vote these motherfarkers out.

Not bolting my breath though. Because Jesus and Socialism.
 
2013-01-13 02:44:30 PM  

Zerochance: I have really, really come to abhor the term "Pro Life". The people that describe themselves as such are predominantly not in favor of life; they're just against abortion.


I've always preferred "anti-choice."
 
2013-01-13 02:48:22 PM  

thamike: Zerochance: I have really, really come to abhor the term "Pro Life". The people that describe themselves as such are predominantly not in favor of life; they're just against abortion.

I've always preferred "anti-choice."


"Pro-slavery" works, too.

/Given their recent legislative record, you could also legitimately call the Rapublican party the "Anti-democratic Party."
 
2013-01-13 02:56:30 PM  
The whole "Every life is sacred" schtick is a manufactured controversy. It's not even biblically sound.

Numbers five.
 
2013-01-13 02:56:52 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: thamike: Zerochance: I have really, really come to abhor the term "Pro Life". The people that describe themselves as such are predominantly not in favor of life; they're just against abortion.

I've always preferred "anti-choice."

"Pro-slavery" works, too.

/Given their recent legislative record, you could also legitimately call the Rapublican party the "Anti-democratic Party."


They hate us for our freedoms.
 
2013-01-13 03:32:33 PM  

BravadoGT: Here's the entire declaration from the offending act:


SEC. 2. DECLARATION. In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress' power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States-- (1) the Congress declares that-- (A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and (B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions. It seems a "bit" of a stretch to read that, and then come to the conclusion that Paul Ryan's intent is to "make sure rapists have the right to sue the raped mothers of their rape babies for custody."


Quiet, you! We're having a liberal outrage circle jerk here! Pointing out that the article makes some extremely wild assumptions of what could or might possibly happen and then declaring that the far-fetched and unlikely possible outcome is Ryan's sole intent isn't helping. I almost lost my outrage boner thanks to you!

Paul Ryan can eat a huge bowl of dicks as far as I'm concerned, but this article is just retarded hysterics trying very hard to drum up some manufactured outrage. Jezebel can share Ryan's bowl of dicks if they don't have their own.
 
2013-01-13 03:54:24 PM  

mod3072: Quiet, you! We're having a liberal outrage circle jerk here! Pointing out that the article makes some extremely wild assumptions of what could or might possibly happen and then declaring that the far-fetched and unlikely possible outcome is Ryan's sole intent isn't helping. I almost lost my outrage boner thanks to you!

Paul Ryan can eat a huge bowl of dicks as far as I'm concerned, but this article is just retarded hysterics trying very hard to drum up some manufactured outrage. Jezebel can share Ryan's bowl of dicks if they don't have their own.


Jezebel might be going into hysterics, but it doesn't really matter.  This:

(A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and (B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood;

is f*cked up enough.
 
2013-01-13 04:31:21 PM  
This piece of shiat would fit right in in India.
 
2013-01-13 04:35:29 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: 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.


Yes, and it is called Pom Pons Team. Bunch o' future strippers.
 
2013-01-13 05:57:15 PM  

mod3072: Paul Ryan can eat a huge bowl of dicks as far as I'm concerned, but this article is just retarded hysterics trying very hard to drum up some manufactured outrage. Jezebel can share Ryan's bowl of dicks if they don't have their own.


It's actually rather plausible that suing to prevent an abortion - by way of suing for custody while a woman is still pregnant - would be accepted by certain courts. What is unclear to me is how they expect paternity to be established in such a situation; in other words, how does the man establish a private right of action/standing to begin with? Of course paternity can be established prenatally, but it doesn't seem the bill would allow a man to make a woman undergo such a test. Maybe if he established in a preliminary proceeding that he had sex with the woman? Seems you'd need a jury to do that sort of fact finding. Nice use of resources, nice way of delaying a pregnancy to the point where it can't happen or is more dangerous for the mother.

There are so many things wrong with personhood bills. This is the most emotional example of what could happen, but anyone following a logical train of thought should understand that this type of bill would (in the short term) prevent women from getting necessary medical care and (in the long term) be declared unconstitutional.
 
2013-01-13 07:07:52 PM  
damn, all these people raging about rape on a saturday night/ sunday morning. you should go out and get laid.
 
2013-01-14 05:20:21 AM  

Phil Moskowitz: This piece of shiat would fit right in in India.


I actually heard your computer slap you.
 
2013-01-14 05:26:04 AM  

Lost Thought 00: Democrats have really gotten good at conflating "life begins at conception" with pro-rape. Its about damn time they fought fire with fire


I like how you ignore how your position, when applied to the real world as opposed to the completely abstracted notions in your head, would end up lending legal rights to rapists regarding the children they conceived while forcing themselves upon an unwilling woman. Well, not so much "like" but hey it gives me something very easy to intellectually depants you with.

Protip: if you didn't have an uttterly monstrous position to start with I wouldn't enjoy flaming you online.
 
2013-01-14 06:53:41 AM  

Anenu: It really seems that the GOP had decided to absolutely wrong on everything.


Personally I think the only thing a rapist should get if they got their victim with child is a bill. No mercy should be given to them and the only role in that child's life they should ever have is to be a name on a check.


Personally I think that if any such arrangement were to happen, it should go through the government, and the money going to the mother should be irrespective of whether the rapist was paying the bill or not (so it would purely be up to the government to chase them).
 
2013-01-14 07:25:45 AM  
you have got to f*cking be sh*tting me.

"her rapist could theoretically sue her to stop the abortion"

okay, really? because this would be a man admitting he raped someone... will he go to jail? doubtful. the b*tch deserved it somehow for being a b*tch. rape really is a victimless crime to Republicans. the man can't be held responsible, he has to put his dick somewhere, right? i mean, it's his birthright! so what if this b*tch didn't want it! who cares! that's what she's there for, it's in the Bible somewhere!

/will some of you smart men please start being offended by this and please do something because no one listens to women anymore (maybe you'll get laid)
//why do men hate women so much? why do women deserve the things you all are doing? why do you have these entitlement issues? why can't you control your dicks?
///why do i ask questions here when all i know you cocksuckers will say in response is "you sound fat"?
 
2013-01-14 08:55:43 AM  
If you follow their logic, it makes perfect sense.

See, women really don't mind being raped, and therefore, any rapist is fulfilling a woman's secret desire to have a rape baby. That's "non-legitimate rape" or "non-forcible rape". That's why some women get pregnant after rape, because they secretly wanted a rape baby. Otherwise, their body would just "shut that whole thing down". But Republicans don't want to promote "unwed mothers" so this legal loophole has to be addressed, so that the rapists "victims" rape baby's daddy (also known as "The Rapist") can exert his parental influence, which we want to incorporate into society. And the rapists "victims" can then marry their rape baby's daddy (again, also known as "The Rapist") just like the Bible and Jesus would want them to.

If it was a "legitimate" rape or "forcible" rape, then that's bad. But it doesn't happen that often, really. Because the woman's body can just "shut that whole thing down". Because women don't mind being raped.

I don't know why women don't admit this fact; you'd think the women on Fox news would be talking more about how a woman should truly submit to her man whenever and that it's a natural order.

And that's the word of the Ryan.
 
2013-01-14 10:23:35 AM  

Raspil: you have got to f*cking be sh*tting me.

"her rapist could theoretically sue her to stop the abortion"

okay, really? because this would be a man admitting he raped someone... will he go to jail? doubtful. the b*tch deserved it somehow for being a b*tch. rape really is a victimless crime to Republicans. the man can't be held responsible, he has to put his dick somewhere, right? i mean, it's his birthright! so what if this b*tch didn't want it! who cares! that's what she's there for, it's in the Bible somewhere!

/will some of you smart men please start being offended by this and please do something because no one listens to women anymore (maybe you'll get laid)
//why do men hate women so much? why do women deserve the things you all are doing? why do you have these entitlement issues? why can't you control your dicks?
///why do i ask questions here when all i know you cocksuckers will say in response is "you sound fat"?


You have a masochistic streak?
Your rant is incoherent?
You make pastry for a living?

/Not a cocksucker - NTTAWWT.
 
2013-01-15 01:34:32 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: 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?


And HOO-RAY for advocating single-motherhood which the Rep00plickans have been known to point to as a source of.....[ominous, thundering music] CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR.


"...a continuation of the current [welfare] system will be the ruination of this country," Santorum told a town meeting in Clairton, Pa., in February 1994. "We are seeing it. We are seeing the fabric of this country fall apart, and it's falling apart because of single moms."


Wherever possible, the benefit of having two parents in the home. That's not always possible. Lot of great single moms and single dads. But gosh, to tell our kids, before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone. That's a great idea. Because if there's a two parent family, the prospect of living in poverty goes down dramatically. The opportunities that the child will be able to achieve increase dramatically. So we can make changes in the way our culture works to help bring people away from violence and give them opportunity and bring them into the American system.


~ Mitt Romney, The LOSER, during the Second 2012 Presidential Debate.
 
Displayed 356 of 356 comments

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