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  
•       •       •

3137 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Mar 2013 at 12:45 PM (4 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 05:02:17 PM  

Lord Dimwit: The whole concept of fetal personhood is flawed. No one debates that a fetus is alive in the biological sense, and it has genes different from both its mother and its father, and is therefore a unique life form.

It is not, until some point well after conception but still before birth, a "person". Any termination of pregnancy before this point is not killing a person and is not murder.

If we were to consider a fetus a person from the moment of conception, then a woman's body becomes a crime scene if the pregnancy spontaneously aborts (i.e. she has a miscarriage).


Sometimes I think the best recourse is to play these dumbasses at their own game.  Let's get legislation in place that requires that spontaneous abortion/miscarriage investigated as suicide.
 
2013-03-19 05:09:25 PM  
I'm so, so tired of fighting no nothing idiots for my basic legal right to make my own medical decisions based on medically accurate information provided by doctors and on my own moral beliefs.

I... can we just stop this? Please? Can we marginalize these people already?

It'd be one thing if they fought fair, but how on earth do you have a reasoned debate with people who think harassing vulnerable women trying to see a doctor is what God wants them to do? How do you argue with folks that can justify doctors being harassed and killed because of their "pro-life" views?
 
2013-03-19 05:10:21 PM  
Yes, I typed "no nothing" instead of "know nothing".

I'm tired.
 
2013-03-19 05:14:31 PM  
 
2013-03-19 05:48:02 PM  
The thing about banning abortion is, you can't do it. Like, it's physically impossible to do so. You get 9 months to travel to a country where it's legal and do it there, or get it done in a back alley by a black market butcher, or just fall down the stairs a couple dozen times. The kind of infant morality rates you see in third world countries without proper medical infrastructure proves you don't need a medical procedure to kill a fetus, you just need one to do it safely.

And that's what laws exist to do, to create social order and promote public safety. Forcing people to have something done in secret and unsafely is the exact opposite result we should want and in fact encourages people to break OTHER laws that actually do exist for very good reasons.
 
2013-03-19 05:50:24 PM  
If presented with a personhood amendment, could you not claim the little farker was both invading your personal space and assaulting you (little bastard is stuck in there and leaching your nutrients*) - then just invoke Stand Your Ground and abort the farker?  I mean, if they want to play fast and loose with definitions, then play faster and looser

*And death by childbirth is still a thing, so it is potentially deadly assault
 
2013-03-19 06:05:27 PM  
Well damn...there goes the ONE fun thing there was to do in North Dakota.
 
2013-03-19 06:20:27 PM  

Nuclear Monk: Well damn...there goes the ONE fun thing there was to do in North Dakota.


Well, underage keggers...aw, shiat, they've even tightened up on that nowadays, haven't they?


/left my shoes in North Dakota once
//that was a decent party
 
2013-03-19 09:17:32 PM  
If ever a law DOES pass that gives an embryo "all the rights, privileges and immunities available to other persons," then I'm going to immediately suggest to any family law attorney or juvenile rights attorney in that state that they grab the first pregnant woman they can find, and instantly sue the state legislature on behalf of her unborn fetus for every single law that state has recently overturned, refused to pass, cut funding for, or otherwise negatively impacted the rights, privileges or immunities of that unborn child.

In other words, can the fetus no longer get adequate prenatal vitamins (because mom's welfare benefits have been cut)? Infringement on the fetal rights, because since the fetus can't leave the womb to tend to its own needs, the state has denied its carrier access. Can the fetus no longer get adequate medical care (because mom's Medicaid has been curtailed)? Ditto. In short, anything that keeps the fetal carrier from providing for the needs of the fetus--which has personal rights but which it cannot obtain on its own--is a violation of the fetal rights.

Let these stupid bastards defend the fetal personhood theory in court. If the mother is supporting a person with rights inside her, she's going to have to be able to give that person access to those rights.
 
2013-03-19 09:24:28 PM  

Lord Dimwit: 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.


The whole concept of "becoming a person" reeks of ensoulment, but it seems the natural biological limiter is this:

Would the thing be viable outside of the womb or not?  If so, that's a living person.  If not, it's a dead one.

/born very premature
//took hundreds of thousands of dollars to get through my first year.
///so, even "viable" can be massaged with enough coin
 
2013-03-19 09:52:11 PM  

sendtodave: Lord Dimwit: 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.

The whole concept of "becoming a person" reeks of ensoulment, but it seems the natural biological limiter is this:

Would the thing be viable outside of the womb or not?  If so, that's a living person.  If not, it's a dead one.

/born very premature
//took hundreds of thousands of dollars to get through my first year.
///so, even "viable" can be massaged with enough coin


Well, it keeps changing.

I was born 5 weeks early 49 years ago, and just missed being blinded by an incubator by about three years. I could probably have made it without neonatal care, but my mom still marvels at how tiny I was (5 lbs on the dot). Today, five-pound babies are no big thing, and littler babies go home without comment.

Still, I think you're right, and money notwithstanding, the line of demarcation should be: If the mother was stranded in the wilds of Alaska and suddenly gave birth, would the baby survive? If yes, it's a person. If not, it's a miscarriage.
 
2013-03-19 10:04:50 PM  
If the people that wanted to pass these laws really wanted to stop pregnancies from terminating they'd be funding research into the #1 cause of failed pregnancies - the female body.

At least 25% - and possibly 50% - of all pregnancies naturally terminate for unknown reasons within a very short time period after the egg is fertilized.  A very common reason is failure of the egg to implant in the female.

Funding research into this would stop a much greater percentage of babies.  But they won't because they're not really about saving life.  They are about taking control of women's bodies.

Even more fun - do you know how much effect laws have on the per-capita rate of abortion? Zero.  Polls done around the world show approximately the same rate of abortion regardless of the local laws.

And, CSB time:

My wife and I wanted kids.  We had our first no problem.

My wife's second pregnancy resulted in us finding out at the first ultrasound that embryo was dead at around 8 weeks.

Same thing the third pregnancy.

Fourth pregnancy comes along - first ultra-sound is ok.  Due to previous problems we are seeing a specialist who runs genetic tests around 12 weeks plus an ultra-sound.  The ultrasound indicates possible down's syndrome, which is confirmed by the genetic test via amniotic fluid samples.  There was also another genetic flaw, one of the Trisomy ones (I forget which number).  This combination was literally in the 1 out of millions category.

We go home and check the literature and find literally no cases of the baby surviving to birth with these two conditions.  We do find plenty of cases of complications of the mother's life.

Given we were at 12 weeks we had VERY little time to make a choice, because we were near the end of the first trimesester.  Three days later we walked into an abortion clinic out of state and the procedure was performed.

I'll make a couple more comments.

I told my wife I did not want to risk her life over the baby's.  The baby wouldn't survive anyway.

I also told her that I think people who insist on keeping the baby in these situations are forgetting the responsibilities they already have to their existing children and family.  You do no one a favor by being dead and leaving a 4 year old behind.

My wife had many similar thoughts, but I think she still feels some guilt.  Part of that is because when it comes to an abortion the husband has ZERO say in the matter (and I'm okay with that, except I wish I could take at least half the guilt from my wife).  She is the one who went to the back of the clinic, signed the forms, and allowed the procedure to be done, at least in any legal sense.  I have supported her as much as possible of course.

Also, I do not see a moral difference between our case and taking a loved one off of life support.

And this is why I want to cock punch anti-abortion zealots as hard as possible.

One final thought - life is, as it turns out, not without a sense of humor.  We decided we would try one more time.

We got twins :)

/csb
 
2013-03-19 10:08:15 PM  

rwhamann: Fluorescent Testicle: No, they don't give two shiats about whether it's "Murder" or not, they just really like to subjugate those dirty dirty sluts for having the sheer audacity to be born with a vagina.

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.


For the run-of-the-mill soldiers on the abortion war (i.e., you), it's about the preciousness of life. For those in power who can really enact legislation and such, it's about subjugating the dirty dirty sluts. They don't give two ratsass about your feelings of the sanctity of life. They're using you to enable their desire to control women. So you fell for it. Suckers.
 
2013-03-19 10:12:35 PM  
I forgot to add this to my long-ass CSB above....

Because I have been there - and had the nightmares making the decision - I will be pro-choice until I die.  I do not think you can make that decision for other people when you can not and will never fully understand their situation.

The end.
 
2013-03-19 10:23:18 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


I guess I'm the bogeyman then, because I'm okay with it through the last moment.
 
2013-03-19 10:33:09 PM  

Trivia Jockey: Jobs, jobs jobs, right GOP?


Actually, North Dakota is about the only state around that literally can't find enough people to hire.
 
2013-03-19 10:36:18 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.



As a father raising 2 girls in texastan,  I'm working on our exit strategy.   There's no doubt on this one.
 
2013-03-19 10:53:06 PM  
At least part of this crazy shiat moved out of my state and went north. These dumb farks tried three times with various laws in SD and got their asses voted down.
Even this bass-ackward state gets stuff right once in a while.
 
2013-03-19 10:54:31 PM  

Trivia Jockey: Ohio Senate Republicans say job growth is top priority

GOP: Middle-class jobs, economy must be priority

One Priority Is King: The Economy


Jobs, jobs jobs, right GOP?


This is not a problem north dakota has. Hence shiat like this bill.
 
2013-03-19 11:39:36 PM  
The anti-choice people want to get this to the Supreme Court again to try and overturn Roe v. Wade.
 
2013-03-19 11:50:51 PM  

Sharksfan: I forgot to add this to my long-ass CSB above....

Because I have been there - and had the nightmares making the decision - I will be pro-choice until I die.  I do not think you can make that decision for other people when you can not and will never fully understand their situation.

The end.


How are the kids now?
 
2013-03-20 12:04:33 AM  

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?


1. Anacephalic babies aren't nearly as bad as harlequin babies.
2. Internal organs on the outside happens with some regularity (i.e. not super rare). Granted, they're often easily fixed. It just happens from time to time. Normally it's either the gut (gastroschisis) or the lower part of the spinal cord (spina bifida). It's just not always some horrible disorder which makes life basically not worth living.
 
2013-03-20 12:09:05 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Karac: How are you still this optimistic?

Helps me avoid suicide to not see the world for the place full of deadbeats, sociopaths, bad actors in positions of power (and I don't mean Reagan), malevolence, greed, envy, clannishness, and enmity I know it is.

I grew up with religion, and seeing how a system designed to bring people together got twisted and misused even to my 14-year-old slice of life was enough to get me to realize that everyone's in this life for themselves and will happily murder your entire family in front of you - laughing all the while - if it means they "win". Exceptions are so rare as to not exist.

When everything looks like shiat, finding the rays of light that break through - my optimism - is what keeps me going.

// tl;dr - why do you ask? :)


Exceptions either have some kind of impairment or irregularity that somehow protects them from that realization, or they become total hermits.

/hermit
 
2013-03-20 12:19:10 AM  

Giltric: I thought it was basic constitutional knowledge that government can regulate rights?


It is.  But Roe v. Wade said that abortions cannot be banned before the point of fetal viability.  The moment of conception is much earlier.  The detection of a heartbeat does not indicate ability to survive outside of the womb.

It will be interesting to see ND's arguments for these laws.
 
2013-03-20 12:21:59 AM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Which is why I will be lobbying for my own view on the law - MANDATORY ABORTIONS FOR EVERYONE! Even the men!


I favor mandatory reversible sterilizations for everyone.  Turn them back on when a person qualifies for a mortgage.
 
2013-03-20 12:25:27 AM  

Lord Dimwit: rwhamann: Fluorescent Testicle: No, they don't give two shiats about whether it's "Murder" or not, they just really like to subjugate those dirty dirty sluts for having the sheer audacity to be born with a vagina.

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.

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.


True.  But they don't do it to subjugate dirty sluts.
 
2013-03-20 12:33:59 AM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: 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..


IDK why you bothered.  Your argument works as well against itself as it does against willfullyobscure
 
2013-03-20 12:38:06 AM  
willfullyobscure:

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.

"I don't feel like having a daughter" is not very different from "I don't feel like having a baby."  It's even closer to "I don't feel like having a deformed baby."
 
2013-03-20 12:40:14 AM  

jcooli09: 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.


No, you won't.
 
2013-03-20 12:43:11 AM  

Magorn: 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 who ...


More people would read your thoughts if you learned the use of paragraphs.
 
2013-03-20 12:53:24 AM  

Gyrfalcon: If ever a law DOES pass that gives an embryo "all the rights, privileges and immunities available to other persons," then I'm going to immediately suggest to any family law attorney or juvenile rights attorney in that state that they grab the first pregnant woman they can find, and instantly sue the state legislature on behalf of her unborn fetus for every single law that state has recently overturned, refused to pass, cut funding for, or otherwise negatively impacted the rights, privileges or immunities of that unborn child.

In other words, can the fetus no longer get adequate prenatal vitamins (because mom's welfare benefits have been cut)? Infringement on the fetal rights, because since the fetus can't leave the womb to tend to its own needs, the state has denied its carrier access. Can the fetus no longer get adequate medical care (because mom's Medicaid has been curtailed)? Ditto. In short, anything that keeps the fetal carrier from providing for the needs of the fetus--which has personal rights but which it cannot obtain on its own--is a violation of the fetal rights.

Let these stupid bastards defend the fetal personhood theory in court. If the mother is supporting a person with rights inside her, she's going to have to be able to give that person access to those rights.


The fetus will have no more rights than other people, so no new legal action will be possible.
 
2013-03-20 12:54:37 AM  

Surool: The anti-choice people want to get this to the Supreme Court again to try and overturn Roe v. Wade.


Probably.  I don't understand why they've chosen this moment, though.
 
2013-03-20 02:09:29 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Surool: The anti-choice people want to get this to the Supreme Court again to try and overturn Roe v. Wade.

Probably.  I don't understand why they've chosen this moment, though.


The fundies have gotten bold enough from the Tea Party/Evangelical derp to finally make a move. They are trying like hell to takes us back to the 1950s and they think they have the support to do it.
 
2013-03-20 02:13:51 AM  
This is where I have a problem understanding some Christians on the issue:

I'm Christian. I consider Jesus Christ to be my lord and savior. Others don't agree, and thats cool. I find the idea of abortion to be horrific.

I'm also an American. And I realize full well that this is a medical decision between a woman and her doctor. Period. End of discussion. I would never tell any woman, never mind a rape or incest victim, or a woman who will die if she carries to term, what she has to do with her body. That's not my place. That power doesn't belong to anyone, and it certainly doesn't belong in the State Houses and court rooms across the country. I may perfer that a woman take a different course of action when possible and pray for them for guidance, but just like the cancelation of Salute Your Shorts, this isn't my decision to make. You have to respect that. You don't have to like the outcome, but that's life.

The same holds true for gay marriage, while we're talking about things that make dinner guests squirm. Marriage in this country is a civil institution, NOT a religious one. You don't have to be religious, be married by a priest/preacher/rev./rabbi/etc, or be married in a house of worship. But you had best pay the license fee! As long as marriage remains a civil institution, everyone should be able to get married. Whether or not you personally feel God is happy with the decision doesn't matter. Mind your business. Say a prayer. Light a candle. The Lord isn't going to smite you or put you on the shiat list because two guys were married in Massachusetts. I feel that if two people are happy and committed to each other than that's all you can ask for these days. (As an aside I find it laughable that so many "Christians" love to rant and rave about gay marriage, but you don't hear squat about the >50% divorce rate or that you can get married in the drive through in Vegas. None of that offends God, suuuuure.)

TL;DR - No one elses decisions effect your relationship with your God(s). Religious freedom doesn't mean you get to make the decisions for everyone else. I really miss Salute Your Shorts.
 
2013-03-20 03:47:08 AM  
If these politicians don't have a degree in biology and/or have no medical background then I don't see how anyone wants any part in them drawing up laws that will control which medical procedures you're not allowed to have on your body. Just w-t-f.
 
2013-03-20 09:07:38 AM  

Gyrfalcon: How are the kids now?


Actually pretty good - all happy and healthy, with some bumps along the way.

We actually had a scare - when the twins were at 10 weeks we had more tests and there was an indication that one of them was possibly a Down's baby - the nucal fold gave a high probability.  The specialist was very matter of fact on what the options were.  He said there was a 75% chance the one would naturally terminate.  After that, if it didn't, we would probably want to make the choice to terminate that one if the symptoms were confirmed or else there was a high probability they would both die.

That was a long 4 weeks....we waited it out and went back.  The BEST news I expected was "Twin A died naturally".  So neither my wife or I had any sort of reaction prepared after he did a bunch of stuff and then looked up at us and said "It appears it was a false alarm - they are both healthy and normal".

That same on had a hole in her heart when she was born - but that sealed up naturally around 3 months.

Now they are 20-month old toddlers tearing up the house on a regular basis.
 
2013-03-20 09:24:56 AM  

Patronick313: TL;DR - No one elses decisions effect your relationship with your God(s). Religious freedom doesn't mean you get to make the decisions for everyone else. I really miss Salute Your Shorts.


I like you.  You sound reasonable.  That's a quality that's in short order these days.

And you know what? I also find abortion horrific and I find it distasteful that people do it for convenience, even though I've made the choice to have one (or, technically, my wife).  Sometimes there's only a list of bad options to choose from and again I would never presume to make that choice for someone.

Although I also think there's a whole world of possibilities that could open up if we could get people to be zealots less and compassionate more.  Imagine a world where one choice was a place that housed and fed expectant mothers who were poor and supported them, whether they chose to give up the baby for adoption or keep it.

I'd like to live in that world.
 
2013-03-20 02:22:14 PM  

Lord Dimwit: rwhamann: Fluorescent Testicle: No, they don't give two shiats about whether it's "Murder" or not, they just really like to subjugate those dirty dirty sluts for having the sheer audacity to be born with a vagina.

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.

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 vast majority of Christians in the US are not eligble to vote in the districts that elected the specific candidates you're talking about. If your opinion on a large group is based primarily on the ones that make the news, you're probably dealing with a biased sample.

/CSB: I read an article (I think it was Newsweek?) about evangelical Christians who petitioned a Bush administration. I don't even remember which Bush. The article claimed that most of the evangelical petitions and concerns were centered around providing for the poor and preventing genocide in Africa, and that issues like abortion and prayer in schools were hardly even mentioned. At the time, I was very, very startled, since my worldview of the evangelical Christian movement came from TV news.

/CSB II: Yes, I've seen the graphic on Fark, but I've never personally talked to a conservative pro-life Christian who in any way suggested anything but compassion for women who are thinking of getting an abortion or who have gotten one in the past.
 
2013-03-20 04:56:56 PM  

draypresct: Lord Dimwit: rwhamann: Fluorescent Testicle: No, they don't give two shiats about whether it's "Murder" or not, they just really like to subjugate those dirty dirty sluts for having the sheer audacity to be born with a vagina.

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.

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 vast majority of Christians in the US are not eligble to vote in the districts that elected the specific candidates you're talking about. If your opinion on a large group is based primarily on the ones that make the news, you're probably dealing with a biased sample.

/CSB: I read an article (I think it was Newsweek?) about evangelical Christians who petitioned a Bush administration. I don't even remember which Bush. The article claimed that most of the evangelical petitions and concerns were centered around providing for the poor and preventing genocide in Africa, and that issues like abortion and prayer in schools were hardly even mentioned. At the time, I was very, very startled, since my worldview of the evangelical Christian movement came from TV news.

/CSB II: Yes, I've seen the graphic on Fark, but I've never personally talked to a conservative pro-life Christian who in any way suggested anything but compassion for women who are thinking of getting an abortion or who have gotten one in the past.


They may not have voted for those specific candidates, but they vote for the party that nominates and supports those candidates. Catholics gave 50% of their vote to Republicans, Protestants 57%, with self-described Evangelicals breaking 81% for Republicans. In other words, Christians vote Republican, and the Republican party nominates and supports anti-women candidates.
 
2013-03-20 05:32:44 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.
 ...
They may not have voted for those specific candidates, but they vote for the party that nominates and supports those candidates. Catholics gave 50% of their vote to Republicans, Protestants 57%, with self-described Evangelicals breaking 81% for Republicans. In other words, Christians vote Republican, and the Republican party nominates and supports anti-women candidates.

Protestant + Catholic in the US makes up 75% of the population (CIA World Factbook). I'll take your word for it that they voted 50-57% Republican. You imply that this level of support for Republicans indicates that they want to subjugate women (the original quote), or at least that "they support anti-women candidates".

In 2012, 59% of the Whites in the US (72% of the voters) voted for a Republican for president.
http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president/. Using your logic, does this make Whites anti-women?

The banal truth is that Republicans (even Republican candidates) differ from each other; supporting one does not indicate support of all other Republican candidates. It's also true that White people differ from each other and religious people differ from each other.
 
rpm
2013-03-20 06:14:58 PM  

draypresct: In 2012, 59% of the Whites in the US (72% of the voters) voted for a Republican for president.
http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president/. Using your logic, does this make Whites anti-women?


Yes, it would, and it's accurate as well. Misogyny is alive and well.
 
2013-03-20 06:46:19 PM  

draypresct: 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.
 ...
They may not have voted for those specific candidates, but they vote for the party that nominates and supports those candidates. Catholics gave 50% of their vote to Republicans, Protestants 57%, with self-described Evangelicals breaking 81% for Republicans. In other words, Christians vote Republican, and the Republican party nominates and supports anti-women candidates.

Protestant + Catholic in the US makes up 75% of the population (CIA World Factbook). I'll take your word for it that they voted 50-57% Republican. You imply that this level of support for Republicans indicates that they want to subjugate women (the original quote), or at least that "they support anti-women candidates".

In 2012, 59% of the Whites in the US (72% of the voters) voted for a Republican for president.
http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president/. Using your logic, does this make Whites anti-women?

The banal truth is that Republicans (even Republican candidates) differ from each other; supporting one does not indicate support of all other Republican candidates. It's also true that White people differ from each other and religious people differ from each other.



First off, let me apologize: I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to malign all Christians. I got caught up in the zeal of the Fark poster to prove a point, even if it wasn't the right one or even true. It was stupid of me and I think inadvertently came off as bigoted, which isn't the case. Again I apologize.

Now, on to the rest of my response:

I don't believe Christians inherently want to subjugate women. I'm just saying that a large number of people in this country vote Republican and say "I don't support the misogynist policies, I just vote for a party that supports them." For some people, the abortion question is so important that they're willing to take the hit on the other stuff. I have respect for those people though I don't agree with them, because their logic is at least internally consistent (though, in my opinion, incorrect).

The people I have a problem with are the ones who vote Republican for tax reasons or whatever. They implicitly are saying that slightly more money in their pockets is more important than the civil rights of women and homosexuals. The official Republican Party platform specifically denies equal marriage and opposes amending discrimination laws to include homosexuals, and statement after statement by Republican politicians that are rarely if ever denounced (and then only weakly) have shown that the Republican Party as a whole doesn't seem to have a problem with anti-woman policies.
 
2013-03-21 11:36:07 AM  

Lord Dimwit: draypresct: Lord Dimwit:
First off, let me apologize: I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to malign all Christians. I got caught up in the zeal of the Fark poster to prove a point, even if it wasn't the right one or even true. It was stupid of me and I think inadvertently came off as bigoted, which isn't the case. Again I apologize.



Thinking and apologizing? That's no way to conduct a religious flame war! :)

I don't believe Christians inherently want to subjugate women. I'm just saying that a large number of people in this country vote Republican and say "I don't support the misogynist policies, I just vote for a party that supports them." For some people, the abortion question is so important that they're willing to take the hit on the other stuff. I have respect for those people though I don't agree with them, because their logic is at least internally consistent (though, in my opinion, incorrect).

I agree with you here. I'll even take it further and say that a lot of people vote for Democrats who don't support all their policies; in a system that effectively has only two working parties, you vote for the 'better' choice, not the 'ideal' one.

The people I have a problem with are the ones who vote Republican for tax reasons or whatever. They implicitly are saying that slightly more money in their pockets is more important than the civil rights of women and homosexuals. The official Republican Party platform specifically denies equal marriage and opposes amending discrimination laws to include homosexuals, and statement after statement by Republican politicians that are rarely if ever denounced (and then only weakly) have shown that the Republican Party as a whole doesn't seem to have a problem with anti-woman policies.

I agree with what you're specifically saying here condemning people with those motives, but in my highly-biased sample of people I spend time with, I don't know many Republicans who are like that. I know people who (for example) voted for McCain out of a sincere belief that he had more foreign policy experience than Obama.

One more thought on this: Motivations behind a vote can be tricky. I know a very (old-school small-government) conservative person who voted against Goldwater. He agreed with Goldwater on most of his important positions (e.g. about gays serving in the army "I don't care if a man is straight so long as he can shoot straight"). The problem was that he thought Goldwater was too polarizing - that his presence, if elected, would prevent the government from functioning.

Separate topic: When you say "rarely if ever denounced (and then only weakly)", I suspect that there's a bit of reporting bias. A Republican saying something repugnant makes news, generates ad revenue. Republicans calmly and reasonably repudiating these statements tend to not be as exciting. The number of elected Republicans who were disgusted by Akin's comments and who called for him to resign far outnumbered the number who supported them - which ones got more press? I think the former included most of the Republican leadership and the latter number was just Steve King.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/08/list-of-senators-c al ling-on-akin-to-quit-keeps-growing-132703.html

By the way: Thanks for the discussion. I enjoy threads that make me think.

/I'm using "bias" in a statistical sense throughout this post.
 
Displayed 43 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

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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