Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Fresh on the heels of approving laws that ban abortions based on fetal birth defects or after the sixth week of pregnancy, ND lawmakers apparently decide to try to go "all in" and ban any abortions occuring after the first picosecond of pregnancy   (huffingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, North Dakota, University of North Dakota, criminal negligence, Personhood USA, abortions, IVF  
•       •       •

3135 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Mar 2013 at 12:45 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-03-19 01:36:55 PM  

bruce4bruce: I think that if you are in favor of life for every fetus and you believe every inseminated egg is precious and deserves to live... you would also be in favor of universal health care and giving all people a chance to live.


You think these people are capable of noticing the problem. You're wrong.
 
2013-03-19 01:36:57 PM  

rwhamann: AS a former 100% right to lifer, that's not true, and wasn't true for the vast majority of my fellow Christians, but feel free to keep punch that strawman's solar plexus.


Were you, at the time, for or against social welfare programs, including cheap/free medical care and affordable daycare?
 
2013-03-19 01:39:34 PM  
An implanted fetus is a human life. You have to accept that. A germinated seed is a plant, even if you don't get any tomatoes from it for 90-120 days depending on the variety. No different with fetuses.

The mother is a human life too; and in supporting abortion, you are saying that her right to decide what happens to her own body is more important than having the state protect the life of the fetus. Her right to autonomy vs the unborn's right to life.

There is no other way around it. This is the heart of the debate and all else is just noise.
 
2013-03-19 01:41:24 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: rwhamann: AS a former 100% right to lifer, that's not true, and wasn't true for the vast majority of my fellow Christians, but feel free to keep punch that strawman's solar plexus.

Were you, at the time, for or against social welfare programs, including cheap/free medical care and affordable daycare?


Or fact-based sex education?
 
2013-03-19 01:41:32 PM  
Meh.  They've got oil money and the pro-birth lawyers need some cash.  Go for it, old white dudes!


won't someone think of the lawyers!!!!
 
2013-03-19 01:41:47 PM  

Lord Dimwit: It may not be true for the vast majority of Christians, but they continue to vote for people who, in addition to supporting total bans on abortion, also talk about things like "legitimate rape" and who vote to deny women the right to confront their rapists in court.


The anti-intellectual groupthink is the primary reason I just can't go to church anymore, even though I pray daily and still believe.  American Evangelicals have taken "the ends justiify the means" to heart on a frightening, if subconcious, level.  They are willing to vote for all matter of immoral people if the magic (R) is behind their name, because that (R) stands for No Mo(R)e abo(R)tions.  Treatment of the poor, support for big tobacco and big oil, hatred of illegal aliens, none of them dissaude them.  When I was arguing about who was the more moral candidate in 2004 with a church elder, I asked him why the unborn dead in America were more important to God than the very dead in Iraq. I pointed out that according to our beliefs, the babies are now in heaven, while many of the Muslim dead went to hell. His very cold reply was that the Iraqis that died had had their chance to accept Christ and didn't. (This at a very cool, and very compassionate church I might add, the most compassionate church I've ever attended.)
 
2013-03-19 01:41:51 PM  
If personhood begins at conception, and roughly 50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant, then having kids is immoral.

On average, for every kid born, one has to die.
 
2013-03-19 01:43:08 PM  

Dr Dreidel: In the 40-odd years since Roe v Wade, the pro-life movement has not pushed for any sort of parallel rules for the fathers of these fetii, at least not nearly in the same dogmatic way they fetishize every pregnancy - no mandatory paternity tests, no forced payments to expectant mothers, no restrictions on his bodily autonomy...


With you 5x5.
 
2013-03-19 01:43:37 PM  

rwhamann: One little ray: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-moments-that-prove-mr.-rogers-was-great e st-american/


Made it through without tears (though it did get a smile). I'm also signing the petition to make his birthday (tomorrow, 20 March) a national holiday.

// knew about Mr Rogers not only from watching his show, but when he died, I was a guest on Baltimore's 98Rock when they did a great tribute
// heading into a break, Mickey says "OK, in memory of Mr Rogers, here's a song by someone very similar" [opening bars of Mr Brownstone]
// Amelia: "Yeah, but Mr Rogers never did heroin!"
// me, under my breath "...that we know of..."
 
2013-03-19 01:43:38 PM  

willfullyobscure: An implanted fetus is a human life. You have to accept that...


Because why? Because you said so? Hell no. I don't have to accept it, because it's not t
 
2013-03-19 01:44:06 PM  

willfullyobscure: An implanted fetus is a human life. You have to accept that. A germinated seed is a plant, even if you don't get any tomatoes from it for 90-120 days depending on the variety. No different with fetuses.

The mother is a human life too; and in supporting abortion, you are saying that her right to decide what happens to her own body is more important than having the state protect the life of the fetus. Her right to autonomy vs the unborn's right to life.

There is no other way around it. This is the heart of the debate and all else is just noise.


It can definitely be framed that way. The argument, for me, is simple - you don't automatically have all human rights from the instant you become human. A child has fewer rights than an adult. A severely mentally disabled person has fewer rights than someone capable of caring for themselves (e.g. if a severely mentally disabled person can be restrained against his or her will). A fetus, especially one without a cerebral cortex, has fewer rights than someone with a cerebral cortex (in this case, the mother).

The whole purpose of society and laws is the weigh the rights of different people against one another. I would argue that before the development of the cerebral cortex, the mother's rights outweigh those of the fetus in all circumstances. Things get murkier from there.
 
2013-03-19 01:44:29 PM  

bruce4bruce: I think that if you are in favor of life for every fetus and you believe every inseminated egg is precious and deserves to live... you would also be in favor of universal health care and giving all people a chance to live.


Don't be ridiculous.  Once they're drawing breath, social responsibility to them ends and they have to bootstrap themselves.  We wouldn't want no parasites getting something for free, would we?  Fark Lucky Ducky anyhow.
 
2013-03-19 01:44:31 PM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: willfullyobscure: An implanted fetus is a human life. You have to accept that...

Because why? Because you said so? Hell no. I don't have to accept it, because it's not true


FTFM damn touchpad..
 
2013-03-19 01:44:56 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Were you, at the time, for or against social welfare programs, including cheap/free medical care and affordable daycare?


For.  The children shouldn't suffer because of stupid adults.
 
2013-03-19 01:46:39 PM  
The first time I heard about a personhood bill, I decided that if it passed I would start a charitable foundation to cover travel expenses for needy women who were oppressed by stone aged legislatures.  I wonder if I'll end up doing it this time.
 
2013-03-19 01:46:44 PM  

rwhamann: Lord Dimwit: It may not be true for the vast majority of Christians, but they continue to vote for people who, in addition to supporting total bans on abortion, also talk about things like "legitimate rape" and who vote to deny women the right to confront their rapists in court.

The anti-intellectual groupthink is the primary reason I just can't go to church anymore, even though I pray daily and still believe.  American Evangelicals have taken "the ends justiify the means" to heart on a frightening, if subconcious, level.  They are willing to vote for all matter of immoral people if the magic (R) is behind their name, because that (R) stands for No Mo(R)e abo(R)tions.  Treatment of the poor, support for big tobacco and big oil, hatred of illegal aliens, none of them dissaude them.  When I was arguing about who was the more moral candidate in 2004 with a church elder, I asked him why the unborn dead in America were more important to God than the very dead in Iraq. I pointed out that according to our beliefs, the babies are now in heaven, while many of the Muslim dead went to hell. His very cold reply was that the Iraqis that died had had their chance to accept Christ and didn't. (This at a very cool, and very compassionate church I might add, the most compassionate church I've ever attended.)


What's more worrisome is that I don't think there are that many single-issue pro-life voters left. I realize this is anecdotal, but everyone I know who votes Republican for pro-life reasons has also somehow managed to convince themselves that Jesus was a capitalist who would oppose socialized medicine and welfare for the poor - something that he very obviously supported.
 
2013-03-19 01:46:52 PM  

Lord Dimwit: I think my answers are reasonable (but of course everyone thinks their answers are reasonable). The pro-lifers who want to completely ban abortions are absolutely morally incorrect. The pro-choicers who believe that abortions are moral at any point during pregnancy* are also incorrect - but they're not out there trying to change the law, or criminalize the behavior of the other side, or completely stifle the debate, are they?

There are people who believe that some abortions should be restricted but who think that most should be allowed. The problem is that they are drowned out by the crazy right wingers.

* I say this as the father of a pre-term child. I remember talking to someone who said that abortions after the gestational age at which my son was born are okay because they're not a person and even if they were, the mother's rights allow for no consideration under any circumstances of those of the fetus. My son at the time of this discussion had not become a person according to this argument. I was infuriated.


"Anytime" abortionists are largely a fringe boogieman. Most people are concerned with viability - commonly about 22-24 weeks, which is when half of fetuses that are removed from the body can survive with the help of advanced medical care (28 weeks was the lower limit of RvW, in an era of less advanced medical care).  While a preterm at that level of development could survive, so could a baby with a number of highly disabling genetic disorders, and there are already significant barriers to abortion in the case of preterms in the potentially viable age range (doctor must certify/test).

// largely a pragmatist
 
2013-03-19 01:47:00 PM  

Jim_Callahan: don't have object permanence or any capacity for abstraction, so they don't actually have a mind yet, which is kind of a prerequisite for being a person.


If that is the case, is there any actual persons posting on fark?
 
2013-03-19 01:48:38 PM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: willfullyobscure: An implanted fetus is a human life. You have to accept that...

Because why? Because you said so? Hell no. I don't have to accept it, because it's not t


You do have to agree that it's an instance of a  homo sapiens sapiens, because it is. You disagree that it's "human". I would argue that it's "human" but it, depending on gestational age, may not yet be a "person". Yay semantics!
 
2013-03-19 01:51:00 PM  

Coco LaFemme: I think it goes without saying at this point that if you're a woman, you should not live in any state that votes predominantly Republican on any issue.  Which means I technically should get the hell out of Dodge, since I live in North Carolina, but we're purple enough that I can justify not dumping my boyfriend and amscraying.  If you're a woman and you live in any former Confederate state, any state in the Plains, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, or Alaska?  LEAVE.  LEAVE NOW.  It's not safe for you and it never will be.  They want to turn your life into a live-action retelling of The Handmaid's Tale.


In all seriousness, again it's time to trot out my somewhat scaremongering, but absolutely legally correct analysis of what "life begins at conception" laws coupled with a repeal of Roe v. Wade would actually mean:


Contrary to popular belief, Roe takes no position on when life begins.What it does do is create a legal dividing line between the time when a mother's "right to privacy" is so paramount that the state cannot invade or trump her decisions about her own body, and then the state begins to have a sufficiently robust interest in the life of the child that they can step in and begin to restrict the abortion process.If that ruling were to cease to exist, any law placing restrictions on a woman based on the state's claim that it was to protect the life of the child would only have to pass the extremely low bar of the law "having some conceivable rational basis"Now couple that with a statement that life begins at fertilization and you got yourselves Trouble with a capital T that rhymes with C which stand for Conception.Because, you see, no process known to medical science can do anything more than estimate when conception has occurred.Most women don't even realize they ARE pregnant until they've missed a period and that could be four weeks or so after conception. And we can't have all of these "potential persons" subject to abuse and/or neglect for four whole weeks of their lives while the state stands by and does nothing now can we?So obviously, the only rational thing to do is to place blanket restrictions on any woman from first menses to menopause (with perhaps exceptions for medically certified virgins who submit to weekly exams to confirm their status, and those deemed biologically infertile).So clearly, at a minimum we'd have to pass laws forbidding the sale of alcohol or cigarettes to, or its consumption by any "potentially pregnant" woman (maybe we could give them one week a month off from this provided they prove to the alcohol seller that they are actively menstruating ).And Why stop there , we'd need to place mandatory nutrition monitoring of these women to ensure that IF they are pregnant our little future voter is getting the pre-natal vitamins they need right?And we reallyneed to limit these women's exposure to toxic chemicals and place limits on their physical activity lest they unwittingly cause a miscarriage.Oh and speaking of miscarriages, it goes without saying that in order to ensure justice for all these "unborn-American" citizens, any miscarriage will have to cause the opening of a homicide investigation and require the coroner to do a full autopsy.And of course we'd have to bring criminal neglect or child abuse charges against the mother if she contributed to the little tyke's demise by carelessness or willful consumption of the wrong kinds of food or drink...etc etc ad naseum.

Overblown?Perhaps.Utterly legal if Roe goes away?Absolutely
 
2013-03-19 01:51:29 PM  
You DO know that these laws are just a deliberate troll to get the cases kicked up to the US Supreme Court, where Scalia and Thomas are just itchin' to use it as an excuse to overturn Roe V. Wade, right?
 
2013-03-19 01:51:31 PM  

Lord Dimwit: What's more worrisome is that I don't think there are that many single-issue pro-life voters left. I realize this is anecdotal, but everyone I know who votes Republican for pro-life reasons has also somehow managed to convince themselves that Jesus was a capitalist who would oppose socialized medicine and welfare for the poor - something that he very obviously supported.


Yup, I almost got disowned from my ex-wifes all Christian family when I told them that the abortion thing would kill us - that instead of Christans making the Republicans more compassionate and Christ-like, they'd influence us to absorb Republicans values that would make Christ cringe.
 
2013-03-19 01:53:26 PM  

RsquaredW: Lord Dimwit: I think my answers are reasonable (but of course everyone thinks their answers are reasonable). The pro-lifers who want to completely ban abortions are absolutely morally incorrect. The pro-choicers who believe that abortions are moral at any point during pregnancy* are also incorrect - but they're not out there trying to change the law, or criminalize the behavior of the other side, or completely stifle the debate, are they?

There are people who believe that some abortions should be restricted but who think that most should be allowed. The problem is that they are drowned out by the crazy right wingers.

* I say this as the father of a pre-term child. I remember talking to someone who said that abortions after the gestational age at which my son was born are okay because they're not a person and even if they were, the mother's rights allow for no consideration under any circumstances of those of the fetus. My son at the time of this discussion had not become a person according to this argument. I was infuriated.

"Anytime" abortionists are largely a fringe boogieman. Most people are concerned with viability - commonly about 22-24 weeks, which is when half of fetuses that are removed from the body can survive with the help of advanced medical care (28 weeks was the lower limit of RvW, in an era of less advanced medical care).  While a preterm at that level of development could survive, so could a baby with a number of highly disabling genetic disorders, and there are already significant barriers to abortion in the case of preterms in the potentially viable age range (doctor must certify/test).

// largely a pragmatist


Thank you, that's what I was trying to say. The right wing tries to say that there are people out there who want abortions as the kid is popping out of the birth canal, and while there might be one or two nutcases out there like that, they're not in the majority or the plurality or even a significant minority. It's the same tactic as the whole "if we allow gay marriage then we have to let people marry turtles!" argument.

The debate has never been "no abortions ever vs unrestricted abortions at any time!" - it's always been "no abortions ever vs abortions in certain circumstances weighing the rights, safety, and health of everyone involved".
 
2013-03-19 01:53:45 PM  
and I'm guessing they ALL oppose those obnoxiously intrusive background checks for gun purchases?


keep on keeping on, old white dudes!
 
2013-03-19 01:56:38 PM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: willfullyobscure: An implanted fetus is a human life. You have to accept that...

Because why? Because you said so? Hell no. I don't have to accept it, because it's not t


 It's a biological fact. Life begins at implantation. Might as well argue that the sun comes up in the West. Have an abortion==end a human life.


Lord Dimwit: Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: willfullyobscure: An implanted fetus is a human life. You have to accept that...

Because why? Because you said so? Hell no. I don't have to accept it, because it's not t

You do have to agree that it's an instance of a  homo sapiens sapiens, because it is. You disagree that it's "human". I would argue that it's "human" but it, depending on gestational age, may not yet be a "person". Yay semantics!



THe Marquis de Sade argued for full legal equality for women, including emancipation and abortion on demand. He said it should be the mother's choice to abort for up to one year after the actual birth, since the infant was so dependent on the mother that it was still basically a part of her, consuming her resources and forcing her to care for it.

Might have be a tad over the line, but you can see the point he's making
 
2013-03-19 01:57:30 PM  

rwhamann: Fluorescent Testicle: Were you, at the time, for or against social welfare programs, including cheap/free medical care and affordable daycare?

For.  The children shouldn't suffer because of stupid adults.


I would be supportive of an anti-abortion bill IF it included robust funding for daycare, comprehensive sex education, regular education, and healthcare for all children and qualifying parents, as well as obvious caveats for incest/rape/deformities/mother's health.
 
2013-03-19 01:58:56 PM  

willfullyobscure: THe Marquis de Sade argued for full legal equality for women, including emancipation and abortion on demand. He said it should be the mother's choice to abort for up to one year after the actual birth, since the infant was so dependent on the mother that it was still basically a part of her, consuming her resources and forcing her to care for it.


Yeah, I think he was quoted favorably in the last issue of Air America magazine before it was sold to the ay-rabs.

// I know some 36 month abortions I'd like to make sometimes...
// two year olds, ya know?
 
2013-03-19 02:02:39 PM  

Tomahawk513: rwhamann: Fluorescent Testicle: Were you, at the time, for or against social welfare programs, including cheap/free medical care and affordable daycare?

For.  The children shouldn't suffer because of stupid adults.

I would be supportive of an anti-abortion bill IF it included robust funding for daycare, comprehensive sex education, regular education, and healthcare for all children and qualifying parents, as well as obvious caveats for incest/rape/deformities/mother's health.


Why?  It might tempt a few women (or couples) to have a kid, but why would change a woman's mind on whether or not to have one?

It's still none of your business

//old white dude?
 
2013-03-19 02:02:42 PM  

willfullyobscure: It's a biological fact. Life begins at implantation. Might as well argue that the sun comes up in the West. Have an abortion==end a human life.


Define life.
 
2013-03-19 02:14:18 PM  

rwhamann: Lord Dimwit: What's more worrisome is that I don't think there are that many single-issue pro-life voters left. I realize this is anecdotal, but everyone I know who votes Republican for pro-life reasons has also somehow managed to convince themselves that Jesus was a capitalist who would oppose socialized medicine and welfare for the poor - something that he very obviously supported.

Yup, I almost got disowned from my ex-wifes all Christian family when I told them that the abortion thing would kill us - that instead of Christans making the Republicans more compassionate and Christ-like, they'd influence us to absorb Republicans values that would make Christ cringe.


Seperation of Church and State works for both sides.  It's impossible to get put Jesus in Congress without Him getting smeared as a politician.

If nothing else, why would a Baptist/Methodist/Mormom/Catholic be so sure that theirs is the denomiation that a theocratic government would support?
"OK, everybody.  Abortions are now 100% completely illegal.  The same goes for alcohol, sporting events on Sundays, and blood transfusions."
 
2013-03-19 02:16:49 PM  

SisterMaryElephant: Tomahawk513: rwhamann: Fluorescent Testicle: Were you, at the time, for or against social welfare programs, including cheap/free medical care and affordable daycare?

For.  The children shouldn't suffer because of stupid adults.

I would be supportive of an anti-abortion bill IF it included robust funding for daycare, comprehensive sex education, regular education, and healthcare for all children and qualifying parents, as well as obvious caveats for incest/rape/deformities/mother's health.

Why?  It might tempt a few women (or couples) to have a kid, but why would change a woman's mind on whether or not to have one?

It's still none of your business

//old white dude?


Young white dude. 
And you're right, it is none of my business if a woman wants to have an abortion.  It's also none of my business if a person steals a car, plagiarizes, or cuts in line so long as it's not my car, my work, or in front of me.  But just because it doesn't affect me doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on it.  I don't need to be the victim of racism to know that racism is bad, m'kay?

I tend to believe that if two consenting adults decide to bump uglies, they are accepting the consequences that may come of their actions.  However, that consequence should not ruin their lives, and the consequence should be well taken care of.  Forgive the pun, but an unplanned pregnancy should be nothing more than a bump in the road of life.
 
2013-03-19 02:17:19 PM  
You're gonna carry your rape baby, and you're gonna like it. Also note, ND is one of the states where the rapist gets full parental rights, so have fun forming that relationship over your lifetime, also good luck with your kid after you have to leave him/her with a known rapist for the weekend.

/because small government
 
2013-03-19 02:25:55 PM  

willfullyobscure: An implanted fetus is a human life. My foot's up a dog's ass all day. See Fark thread 7609906.

 
2013-03-19 02:29:29 PM  
Oh SHIAT, he quoted the Marquis de Sade too!!??

Way to have one's foot up dogbutt, dude.
 
2013-03-19 02:31:34 PM  

willfullyobscure: It's a biological fact. Life begins at implantation. Might as well argue that the sun comes up in the West. Have an abortion==end a human life.


But not a human person, and that's the important part. Life is cheap; every cell in your body has the complete set of instructions to make another human. The important part is not life, but the presence of a functioning higher brain - the part that differentiates a clump of cells with human DNA from a person. A first trimester fetus is life, but it most definitely is not a person.

You can try to handwave away that distinction all you want; you will always be in the wrong on any scientific or ethical basis for doing so. You can try and pretend it's a religious claim, that the "soul" makes the fetus a person at conception. But that's just empty supernaturalism, and even at that it contradicts what is actually taught in the Bible (just as one example) about when ensoulment is supposed to take place (with the first breath, actually) and even then, children younger than a month old were not functionally considered to be persons because they died so commonly.
 
2013-03-19 02:38:06 PM  

Magorn: They just passed a law banning abortions based on genetic defects?  What kind of sick farks would force an anacephalic baby to be born? (warning, DO NOT google, trust me you're better off not knwoing that such things can exist) or one with exterior interal organs?  And is it only "genetic" defects? Are deformities caused by teratogens also banned, or is aborting those babies okay?


Oh, Eru.  Anencephaly was the first thing that came to my mind, too.  Also, how would the law treat hydatidiform moles and ectopic pregnancies?
 
2013-03-19 02:44:22 PM  

palelizard: willfullyobscure: It's a biological fact. Life begins at implantation. Might as well argue that the sun comes up in the West. Have an abortion==end a human life.

Define life.


There's a reason that the terms "life," "human life," and "personhood" are used interchangeably by certain people in these discussions, and I fear my opinion of those reasons is very ungenerous...

/An ameoba is "life." A blob of spit can legitmately be said to contain "human life." If you mean something else, use the right term.
 
2013-03-19 02:47:08 PM  

willfullyobscure: An implanted fetus is a human life. You have to accept that. A germinated seed is a plant, even if you don't get any tomatoes from it for 90-120 days depending on the variety. No different with fetuses.

The mother is a human life too; and in supporting abortion, you are saying that her right to decide what happens to her own body is more important than having the state protect the life of the fetus. Her right to autonomy vs the unborn's right to life.

There is no other way around it. This is the heart of the debate and all else is just noise.


Let's assume you're right about the first part (as an interesting side note, what is your stance on the right to murder bacteria?). You're forgetting a major part of this equation:

What's best for the child?

Dying in horrible agony a few hours after birth? No, that's not best. Dying slowly over a few years? Still no. Putting a child in a situation where the parents hate them and they're shunted from foster home to foster home? Difficult, which is why it's legally the choice of the mother, who has the most legal interest (because Daddy's a great guy, but does not actually have any physical effects from pregnancy). But overall, aborting babies with severe genetic defects isn't about what the parents want, it's about what's best for the  child. They're dead either way most of the time. Killing them before their nerves fully develop? That is the most ethical solution.

Society teaches us to preserve life at all costs. That view is completely, 100% wrong, and causes far more harm than good. That's why anti-abortionists really have no claim to religion; forcing children to die in agony or mothers to deliver stillborn children is not moral, ethical, or anything else. It's petty and goes against everything Christ (which is the usual god they claim) taught.

/And as far as abortions where the mother has a loving family to support her and it's just 'not convenient'...well, that exists in an alternate universe, so if you want to handle abortions where there are non-biological reasons for the abortion, start by creating support networks for mothers and babies.
 
2013-03-19 02:49:37 PM  
The should just make it illegal to not stick your penis in a vagina.
 
2013-03-19 02:53:46 PM  

Kittypie070: Oh SHIAT, he quoted the Marquis de Sade too!!??

Way to have one's foot up dogbutt, dude.


Every time I come in the thread, you in the thread. In the goddamn refrigerator. Eatin' up all the fetuses. All the embyros... All the placentas... I wanna eat them fetuses... I like embryos.
 
2013-03-19 02:58:20 PM  

This Is Bold Text: The should just make it illegal to not stick your penis in a vagina.


They would more likely make it illegal to have a penis put in your vagina at any time.

after all, the guy's only doing what comes naturally to any slutwhore of a girl who's willing.....

/if they were serious, they'd address their daddy issues.  until then, fark you, old white dudes
 
2013-03-19 03:00:27 PM  

Strix occidentalis: Also, how would the law treat hydatidiform moles and ectopic pregnancies?


I got into a debate with another woman over abortion and brought up ectopic pregnancies. She said the mother should carry to term. Then I asked if she knew what an ectopic pregnancy was and her answer was "modern medicine can keep them both alive. That's fact."

That's when I shook my head and walked away from the argument because there's no reasoning with that amount of stupid.
 
2013-03-19 03:33:50 PM  

rynthetyn: The fact that they aren't wanting to ban IVF just proves that it's not really about believing that life begins at conception.


Pretty much what I came here for. WTF does IVF have to do with this? The only rationalization I can fathom is that there may be many zygotes left over that aren't implanted, and are thus frozen or die.
 
2013-03-19 03:44:13 PM  

PsiChick: Let's assume you're right about the first part (as an interesting side note, what is your stance on the right to murder bacteria?). You're forgetting a major part of this equation:What's best for the child?


I'm pro choice. Not sure why you think I'm not. But let me put this to you: India and China practice sex-selective abortion on a mass scale- what possible moral justification can be had for terminating a pregnancy(and a life) because it doesn't have a penis? That's monstrous.
 
2013-03-19 03:53:11 PM  

willfullyobscure: I'm pro choice. Not sure why you think I'm not.

.. what possible moral justification can be had for terminating a pregnancy(and a life)... That's monstrous.

I mean, c'mon. You need to be a bit more subtle than that.
 
2013-03-19 04:12:11 PM  

willfullyobscure: PsiChick: Let's assume you're right about the first part (as an interesting side note, what is your stance on the right to murder bacteria?). You're forgetting a major part of this equation:What's best for the child?

I'm pro choice. Not sure why you think I'm not. But let me put this to you: India and China practice sex-selective abortion on a mass scale- what possible moral justification can be had for terminating a pregnancy(and a life) because it doesn't have a penis? That's monstrous.


You realize that putting up your children for adoption is illegal in China.  That's an important detail.  My co-worker adopted a Chinese girl that was abandoned on a railway track.  Is that better?
 
2013-03-19 04:15:15 PM  

Biological Ali: willfullyobscure: I'm pro choice. Not sure why you think I'm not... what possible moral justification can be had for terminating a pregnancy(and a life)... That's monstrous.

I mean, c'mon. You need to be a bit more subtle than that.


I'm already over quota. anything else is just fishin' for fun.

I'm not wrong though- sex-selective abortion is a hole in the waterline for arguments about the agency of the mother in choosing an abortion. It's also when the ardent pro-abortion hardliners scamper for the hills, so that's fun, too.
 
2013-03-19 04:29:13 PM  

SisterMaryElephant: and I'm guessing they ALL oppose those obnoxiously intrusive background checks for gun purchases?


keep on keeping on, old white dudes!


As they should - as we all should   It was only a matter of time until one group of assholes noticed what method another group of assholes were using in their campaign against constitutionally protected rights.
 
2013-03-19 04:30:34 PM  

willfullyobscure: Biological Ali: willfullyobscure: I'm pro choice. Not sure why you think I'm not... what possible moral justification can be had for terminating a pregnancy(and a life)... That's monstrous.

I mean, c'mon. You need to be a bit more subtle than that.

I'm already over quota. anything else is just fishin' for fun.

I'm not wrong though- sex-selective abortion is a hole in the waterline for arguments about the agency of the mother in choosing an abortion. It's also when the ardent pro-abortion hardliners scamper for the hills, so that's fun, too.


I have to leave but I'm not scampering anywhere.  Abortion should remain a women's right regardless of infinite scenarios you can present where it is creepier.  Reducing late abortions (abortions in general) should be a societal goal but never at the expense of reproductive rights. In fact, to pursuing Conservative policies related to this produce the opposite results and lead to more abortions (not less).
 
2013-03-19 04:31:09 PM  

willfullyobscure: I'm already over quota. anything else is just fishin' for fun.

I'm not wrong though- sex-selective abortion is a hole in the waterline for arguments about the agency of the mother in choosing an abortion. It's also when the ardent pro-abortion hardliners scamper for the hills, so that's fun, too.


Ah... I see you're doing that thing where you openly admit to trolling, then decide to troll a bit more in that same comment to see if anybody still bites.

While I obviously can't oblige you myself, I do wish you the best of luck in this venture.
 
Displayed 50 of 143 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report