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.

(USA Today)   Having sex with 8 partners is the equivalent of drinking a whole classroom's spit, there a new STD out there that's worse than AIDS, all life begins at conception, and other "facts" conservatives teach in high school sex ed (using taxpayer dollars)   (usatoday.com ) divider line
    More: Stupid, teach in, STD, aides, Tennessee State  
•       •       •

17682 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 May 2013 at 4:13 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-29 09:00:08 AM  

chairmenmeow47: if fetuses and babies are the same thing, does that mean i'm nine months older than i thought i was?!

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 250x186]


East Asians think so.
 
2013-05-29 09:02:27 AM  

ciberido: chairmenmeow47: if fetuses and babies are the same thing, does that mean i'm nine months older than i thought i was?!

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 250x186]

East Asians think so.


Koreans also think that sleeping in a room with a fan running will kill you.
 
2013-05-29 10:05:15 AM  

Mija: Life DOES begin at conception and you don't have to be a conservative to believe that FACT. You have to be in denial to excuse your love to killing children to even pretend that a fetus is not a living being.


Nobody loves abortion, dumbass.

It's a last-ditch option in an imperfect world.

Don't like it?

Take it up with your Intelligent Designer.
 
2013-05-29 10:33:32 AM  

chairmenmeow47: Profedius: It is not about what age you start having sex, it is about the nature of your sexual habits and those of your partners. I started have sexual contact at 11 and full intercourse by 12 I have never impregnated anyone and I have never had an STD, because I chose good partners and used birth control. I have turned down a lot more sexual encounters, because I wasn't comfortable with the partner's history leaving me with a total of 16 partners out of over 70 possible in my 40 years.

except of course for HPV, which condoms do not always prevent.  no matter how careful you are, you'd have to have lottery-winning odds to have never come into contact with or spread HPV.  without even knowing it even.

my point is, no matter how careful you are, shiat happens.  condoms and birth control are not 100% methods of protection.  although i commend you for trying to be safe, just realize not everyone with an STD or unplanned pregnancy was funneling gallons of infected semen in their twat.




HPV was not widely known or at least not to me until my late 20s. When I heard stories about it I went and had myself checked and I did not have it and found out it is part of my normal STD tests. I do agree that no birth control is 100% effective, but there are things both can do to get really close to 100% which is more practical than expecting they are not going to have sex. I find it hard to believe anyone thinks they could prevent or at least delay someone from the best feeling life has to offer.
 
2013-05-29 11:22:01 AM  

Profedius: chairmenmeow47: Profedius: It is not about what age you start having sex, it is about the nature of your sexual habits and those of your partners. I started have sexual contact at 11 and full intercourse by 12 I have never impregnated anyone and I have never had an STD, because I chose good partners and used birth control. I have turned down a lot more sexual encounters, because I wasn't comfortable with the partner's history leaving me with a total of 16 partners out of over 70 possible in my 40 years.

except of course for HPV, which condoms do not always prevent.  no matter how careful you are, you'd have to have lottery-winning odds to have never come into contact with or spread HPV.  without even knowing it even.

my point is, no matter how careful you are, shiat happens.  condoms and birth control are not 100% methods of protection.  although i commend you for trying to be safe, just realize not everyone with an STD or unplanned pregnancy was funneling gallons of infected semen in their twat.

HPV was not widely known or at least not to me until my late 20s. When I heard stories about it I went and had myself checked and I did not have it and found out it is part of my normal STD tests. I do agree that no birth control is 100% effective, but there are things both can do to get really close to 100% which is more practical than expecting they are not going to have sex. I find it hard to believe anyone thinks they could prevent or at least delay someone from the best feeling life has to offer.


you cannot test for HPV in men, unless they have the strain with warts.
 
2013-05-29 11:28:25 AM  

Bandito King: There is a ton of difference. I suspect those differences have been pointed out to you in the past and you have ignored them because they don't fit your narrative.

Here is one more attempt to educate you, just in case your troll bowl was getting low:

An embryo is a multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development.
In organisms that reproduce sexually, once a sperm fertilizes an egg cell, the result is a cell called the zygote that has all the DNA of two parents.
A fetus is a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate, after the embryonic stage and before birth.

So in other words: they are discrete stages of development, which is why we have different names for them, and not just, "the same".

In animals, the development of the zygote into an embryo proceeds through specific recognizable stages of blastula, gastrula, and organogenesis. Organogenesis, in case you're wondering, is the generation of organs, which do not exist prior to that point. No heart, no lungs, no brain. Souls don't exist, and a collection of undifferentiated cells is not a human being. I am not the least bit sorry if that hurts your feelings, btw, superstition is the enemy of mankind and churches of all denominations should be bulldozed.

For the record, "you" are the processes that are ongoing in your body to maintain consciousness. Without the impulses and chemical processes involved in the functioning of your brain, you don't exist. A body is just a shell; hardware for the constant, on-going, collection of processes (a cross between ram and firmware, if we continue the metaphor) that make up your (thankfully) unique mind.

Say what you want about aborting a non-viable fetus, you might be able to make some good points, although I doubt it. But you simply cannot argue with any credence that every stage of development is the same thing "but less so". I could be a stunt-man some day, it doesn't make me half a stunt-man right now.


You are making a case for spontaneous generation? One stage BECOMES the next stage, therefore it IS the next stage given enough time. Development is a continuum, not a "stage" as you so arbitrarily put it.

Your last sentence doesn't apply, or make much sense. You're talking about a job, I'm talking about genetics. You could be a stuntman, but you can't be a horse. Your position as I understand it, is that a less developed human, is either not human, or not alive. Which is it?
 
2013-05-29 12:38:22 PM  

mysticcat: Good Gawd there is so much bullshiat here


So, it's pretty much a bog-standard Fark thread?
 
2013-05-29 12:43:05 PM  

Mija: Life DOES begin at conception and you don't have to be a conservative to believe that FACT. You have to be in denial to excuse your love to killing children to even pretend that a fetus is not a living being.


If it's purely a question of whether or not thing things "alive," then wouldn't stepping on an ant or swatting a fly be murder?  Are you a proponent of Jainism?
 
2013-05-29 12:47:57 PM  

MagicMissile: So let me get this straight subby,


Have a cup of coffee first.  This could take a while.

Good to see you've decided to dust off the old election-troll account, though.
 
2013-05-29 01:30:24 PM  

chairmenmeow47: you cannot test for HPV in men, unless they have the strain with warts.




Good to know my doctor is not always truthful then. Still my partners would have told me had they gotten any STDs from me or anyone else. My understanding is that women who have HPV do have some symptoms. I dated a woman once who I didn't sleep with and stopped dating after she told me she recently had genital warts. I stopped dating her not, because of the warts she once had, but due to the nature in how she came to get them.
 
2013-05-29 01:40:04 PM  

lennavan: [www.gannett-cdn.com image 214x283]

Kinda weird for a transgender lady to be the conservative spokesperson for abstinence only.


I had to check the filename for that image, I could have swore it was a gif with her head swaying back and forth slightly.

/Well, back to sniffing glue.
 
2013-05-29 02:03:39 PM  

heili skrimsli: redslippers: I just went and go the paper insert from my daughter's pills. It says that the pill is 97% effective with "perfect use" and 74% effective with "typical use". So, for what it is worth, 26 women out of 100 who are sexually active and taking the pill the way normal people do will get pregnant in a given year while on the pill.

/I didn't make that up. That is what the literature says that came in the pill box.

That includes all of the women who just stop taking it and don't tell their partner.


I'm pretty sure that isn't considered "typical use". That's considered psycho. And that is why you don't stick it in crazy, pr continue a relationship that is very lopsided as far as commitment level and desire for children/marriage.
 
2013-05-29 02:09:23 PM  

RedVentrue: You are making a case for spontaneous generation? One stage BECOMES the next stage, therefore it IS the next stage given enough time. Development is a continuum, not a "stage" as you so arbitrarily put it.


Yes, it is a continuum. Just as the formation of a tornado is a continuum. The fact that, if left unencumbered, the POSSIBILITY exists that it will become something, does not make it that thing. IE: Funnel clouds are not tornadoes. Just as an nonviable embryo or fetus is not a baby. It is a baby when it can live without a parasitic attachment to a host. Up until that point, it is up to the host whether or not to allow the continuum.

I have had many miscarriages. I have five children. I have never had an abortion. But I can tell you that there is no confusing the clump of blood and cells and tissue that is expelled with a miscarriage up to about 15 or 16 weeks with a baby. Babies have skin, fully formed organs, brains, etc. A fetus at that stage of development is not a baby.
 
2013-05-29 02:45:27 PM  

ciberido: Mija: Life DOES begin at conception and you don't have to be a conservative to believe that FACT. You have to be in denial to excuse your love to killing children to even pretend that a fetus is not a living being.

If it's purely a question of whether or not thing things "alive," then wouldn't stepping on an ant or swatting a fly be murder?  Are you a proponent of Jainism?


The next step for this silly argument is for them to claim it's special because the fetus has human DNA, which makes it not just alive, but a person! Under that logic, everyone that scratches off some of their skin cells is a mass-murderer... At which point, they usually try to dance around that being different because that's actually your own exact DNA, so it's not a separate person... Then, cancer is brought up, since that's human DNA, just altered/mutated, so it's not the same as your own... Then, they usually run off in a huff that you dared compare precious babies to cancer!

To me, it's really simple: it's not a person until it develops consciousness, or at the very least the basic necessary biological components for it to exist... So, sometime in the third trimester... At the very, very earliest... Before that, it may be alive, but it's sure as fark not a person...
 
2013-05-29 02:54:14 PM  

redslippers: heili skrimsli: redslippers: I just went and go the paper insert from my daughter's pills. It says that the pill is 97% effective with "perfect use" and 74% effective with "typical use". So, for what it is worth, 26 women out of 100 who are sexually active and taking the pill the way normal people do will get pregnant in a given year while on the pill.

/I didn't make that up. That is what the literature says that came in the pill box.

That includes all of the women who just stop taking it and don't tell their partner.

I'm pretty sure that isn't considered "typical use". That's considered psycho. And that is why you don't stick it in crazy, pr continue a relationship that is very lopsided as far as commitment level and desire for children/marriage.


Yet that is how a lot of those 'I don't know how this happened. I swear I was taking my pill every day.' babies happen.
 
2013-05-29 03:00:59 PM  

redslippers: RedVentrue: You are making a case for spontaneous generation? One stage BECOMES the next stage, therefore it IS the next stage given enough time. Development is a continuum, not a "stage" as you so arbitrarily put it.

Yes, it is a continuum. Just as the formation of a tornado is a continuum. The fact that, if left unencumbered, the POSSIBILITY exists that it will become something, does not make it that thing. IE: Funnel clouds are not tornadoes. Just as an nonviable embryo or fetus is not a baby. It is a baby when it can live without a parasitic attachment to a host. Up until that point, it is up to the host whether or not to allow the continuum.

I have had many miscarriages. I have five children. I have never had an abortion. But I can tell you that there is no confusing the clump of blood and cells and tissue that is expelled with a miscarriage up to about 15 or 16 weeks with a baby. Babies have skin, fully formed organs, brains, etc. A fetus at that stage of development is not a baby.


A child outside the womb is still dependant on others for life, but is considered alive. How do we know which "clump of cells" is viable and which is not? Was it viable before it's scraped off the uterine wall, or in case of later term abortions, cut up and removed from the womb in pieces? Guess we will never know now, will we? There is nothing that can be done about miscarraiges, but that is no reason to support abortions.
 
2013-05-29 03:41:20 PM  

RedVentrue: A child outside the womb is still dependa

ent on others for life, but is considered alive. How do we know which "clump of cells" is viable and which is not? Was it viable before it's scraped off the uterine wall, or in case of later term abortions, cut up and removed from the womb in pieces? Guess we will never know now, will we? There is nothing that can be done about miscarraiges, but that is no reason to support abortions.

Your illogical rant with its false premises doesn't merit a response, so I corrected your spelling instead.
 
2013-05-29 03:51:14 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: RedVentrue: A child outside the womb is still dependaent on others for life, but is considered alive. How do we know which "clump of cells" is viable and which is not? Was it viable before it's scraped off the uterine wall, or in case of later term abortions, cut up and removed from the womb in pieces? Guess we will never know now, will we? There is nothing that can be done about miscarraiges, but that is no reason to support abortions.

Your illogical rant with its false premises doesn't merit a response, so I corrected your spelling instead.


Sigh. Go ahead and keep killing the unborn. It's your Karma.
 
2013-05-29 04:18:31 PM  

RedVentrue: demaL-demaL-yeH: RedVentrue: A child outside the womb is still dependaent on others for life, but is considered alive. How do we know which "clump of cells" is viable and which is not? Was it viable before it's scraped off the uterine wall, or in case of later term abortions, cut up and removed from the womb in pieces? Guess we will never know now, will we? There is nothing that can be done about miscarraiges, but that is no reason to support abortions.

Your illogical rant with its false premises doesn't merit a response, so I corrected your spelling instead.

Sigh. Go ahead and keep killing the unborn. It's your Karma.


False premises are false.

Is a uterus part of your OEM, John?
No? Are women chattel?
(Hint: The correct answer to that question is always "No!")
Is a woman's medical decision - since you aren't the woman directly affected - any of your fuggin bidness?
(Hint: It isn't, you ignoranus.)

/That was deliberate: It's your farkie.
 
2013-05-29 05:13:40 PM  

illannoyin: [media.screened.com image 360x450]

What's next? You stick your d!ck in and it explodes?


images.starpulse.com
Well... not explode, no.
 
2013-05-29 05:16:32 PM  

JWideman: scottydoesntknow: druiid: Well, the pill like condoms are not totally fail-proof. I did in fact have a friend become pregnant on the pill (and their daughter is now approaching a year old). So, it does happen, it's just very very rare and not really a realistic argument for abstinence only programs to make.

Heh, my high school science teacher told us all 3 of her kids were not planned. 2 came while she was on birth control, and the last came after the dad had a vasectomy (which I'm assuming didn't work).

She told us all this as her daughter was sitting next to me, in class.

/We called her Unplanned Pam after that

Either he lied about the vasectomy or she was farking the mailman. And if he lied about the vasectomy, he probably sabotaged her pills.


No, vasectomies are not 100% successful at preventing pregnancy.
 
2013-05-29 05:18:52 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: RedVentrue: demaL-demaL-yeH: RedVentrue: A child outside the womb is still dependaent on others for life, but is considered alive. How do we know which "clump of cells" is viable and which is not? Was it viable before it's scraped off the uterine wall, or in case of later term abortions, cut up and removed from the womb in pieces? Guess we will never know now, will we? There is nothing that can be done about miscarraiges, but that is no reason to support abortions.

Your illogical rant with its false premises doesn't merit a response, so I corrected your spelling instead.

Sigh. Go ahead and keep killing the unborn. It's your Karma.

False premises are false.

Is a uterus part of your OEM, John?
No? Are women chattel?
(Hint: The correct answer to that question is always "No!")
Is a woman's medical decision - since you aren't the woman directly affected - any of your fuggin bidness?
(Hint: It isn't, you ignoranus.)

/That was deliberate: It's your farkie.


Are women chattel? No, but women's bodies aren't just their bodies. Sometimes they are incubators as well. When pregnant your body is not just your body, but an environment for your child. If someone removed you from the environment you needed to live, and placed you in a hostile one (say a mile down in the Pacific Ocean) you would die too. That person would be responsible for killing you, and this is no different.

This is not simply a medical decision, but also a moral one. It's not fair, but it's the way it is. When you terminate a life, you are responsible.
 
2013-05-29 05:37:30 PM  

RedVentrue: demaL-demaL-yeH: RedVentrue: A child outside the womb is still dependaent on others for life, but is considered alive. How do we know which "clump of cells" is viable and which is not? Was it viable before it's scraped off the uterine wall, or in case of later term abortions, cut up and removed from the womb in pieces? Guess we will never know now, will we? There is nothing that can be done about miscarraiges, but that is no reason to support abortions.

Your illogical rant with its false premises doesn't merit a response, so I corrected your spelling instead.

Sigh. Go ahead and keep killing the unborn. It's your Karma.


Wow, this thread is still going on and it's still rather heated! I'll just step in here to post a reminder that when mentioning karma it is important to keep in mind that there multiple concepts of karma and some of them are not necessarily linked to any sort of morality. Karma is sometimes viewed simply as one's attachment to an idea or behavior that serves as a binding force linking a person to the physical world and mortality. Under such a view, moral guidelines could be seen as good advice for a society, but also as ultimately an illusion in the grand scheme of things.
 
2013-05-29 06:01:18 PM  

RedVentrue: Are women chattel? No, but women's bodies aren't just their bodies. Sometimes they are incubators as well. When pregnant your body is not just your body, but an environment for your child.


You see that bold part? It's a contradiction. Women are chattel in your mind.

/I'll bet you're for the death penalty, too.
 
2013-05-29 07:11:56 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: RedVentrue: Are women chattel? No, but women's bodies aren't just their bodies. Sometimes they are incubators as well. When pregnant your body is not just your body, but an environment for your child.

You see that bold part? It's a contradiction. Women are chattel in your mind.

/I'll bet you're for the death penalty, too.


I guess women are chattel to their children, unless you advocate they abandon their children.

No, I'm not for the death penalty. Death is the easy way out, and teaches nothing.
 
2013-05-29 07:14:00 PM  

Walter Paisley: RedVentrue: demaL-demaL-yeH: RedVentrue: A child outside the womb is still dependaent on others for life, but is considered alive. How do we know which "clump of cells" is viable and which is not? Was it viable before it's scraped off the uterine wall, or in case of later term abortions, cut up and removed from the womb in pieces? Guess we will never know now, will we? There is nothing that can be done about miscarraiges, but that is no reason to support abortions.

Your illogical rant with its false premises doesn't merit a response, so I corrected your spelling instead.

Sigh. Go ahead and keep killing the unborn. It's your Karma.

Wow, this thread is still going on and it's still rather heated! I'll just step in here to post a reminder that when mentioning karma it is important to keep in mind that there multiple concepts of karma and some of them are not necessarily linked to any sort of morality. Karma is sometimes viewed simply as one's attachment to an idea or behavior that serves as a binding force linking a person to the physical world and mortality. Under such a view, moral guidelines could be seen as good advice for a society, but also as ultimately an illusion in the grand scheme of things.


I was speaking of the Dharma/Karma process. Sorry if I wasn't specific enough.
 
2013-05-29 08:33:37 PM  

ciberido: JWideman: scottydoesntknow: druiid: Well, the pill like condoms are not totally fail-proof. I did in fact have a friend become pregnant on the pill (and their daughter is now approaching a year old). So, it does happen, it's just very very rare and not really a realistic argument for abstinence only programs to make.

Heh, my high school science teacher told us all 3 of her kids were not planned. 2 came while she was on birth control, and the last came after the dad had a vasectomy (which I'm assuming didn't work).

She told us all this as her daughter was sitting next to me, in class.

/We called her Unplanned Pam after that

Either he lied about the vasectomy or she was farking the mailman. And if he lied about the vasectomy, he probably sabotaged her pills.

No, vasectomies are not 100% successful at preventing pregnancy.


Huh. Didn't know that. Still, 1 in 2000 is pretty good odds. Throw in the two pregnancies despite her being on the pill, and it gets hard to believe.
 
2013-05-29 09:02:02 PM  

Hickory-smoked: Clemkadidlefark: (taxpayer dollars) says subby

Global Warming?
Electric cars?
Endless war?
Every bit of madness called 'education'?

... c'mon subs. 'Conservatives' have so far to climb up the tree of forbidden taxpayer fruit to warrant the "AND THEY'RE DOING IT WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS meme I'll be on my third reincarnation before 'conservatives' get to the break-even point with ProgLib's fleecing of America.

That makes literally no sense in at least 8 different ways. Is this a performance?



It's hard to tell with Clemkadidlefark, between the racism, the vaccination derp, and the conspiracy theories, I'm never quite sure what he believes.  He really comes across as someone who believes what he says, so I doubt he's a troll, but you can never know for certain.
 
2013-05-29 09:23:36 PM  

gweilo8888: It's funny how many people here take every single post they read as if it was 100% serious. Are all of you new?


The problem is, while it's easy to know that not everyone is being 100% serious, it is still quite difficult to know WHICH posts are serious and which are not.
 
2013-05-29 09:28:32 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: redslippers: Yes. I am Jewish, with five kidlets (or as I refer to them, minions). My youngest if four, my oldest if 17. My husband is Lutheran. I was raised in south Georgia, which isn't much fun when you are a Jew. Some of the honest to goodness questions I got growing up: "Jewish, is that kinda like Cath'lic?" "Why don't you wear a cross? They're so purdy" and my personal favorites (it's a tie) "I know you're Jew-ish, but where do you go to church?" and "But Jesus WAS a Jew. How can you not love Jesus? He was one of your people!".

/defying sterotypes: it's my day job.

Wait, you're telling me I could have gotten minions, hmm, oh well to late now.


You could always clone yourself and call the minions "maggettes."
 
2013-05-29 09:47:47 PM  

ciberido: tinfoil-hat maggie: redslippers: Yes. I am Jewish, with five kidlets (or as I refer to them, minions). My youngest if four, my oldest if 17. My husband is Lutheran. I was raised in south Georgia, which isn't much fun when you are a Jew. Some of the honest to goodness questions I got growing up: "Jewish, is that kinda like Cath'lic?" "Why don't you wear a cross? They're so purdy" and my personal favorites (it's a tie) "I know you're Jew-ish, but where do you go to church?" and "But Jesus WAS a Jew. How can you not love Jesus? He was one of your people!".

/defying sterotypes: it's my day job.

Wait, you're telling me I could have gotten minions, hmm, oh well to late now.

You could always clone yourself and call the minions "maggettes."


Hmmm, interesting idea but NO.
: D
 
2013-05-29 09:55:37 PM  

ciberido: gweilo8888: It's funny how many people here take every single post they read as if it was 100% serious. Are all of you new?

The problem is, while it's easy to know that not everyone is being 100% serious, it is still quite difficult to know WHICH posts are serious and which are not.


Oh and I was truthful in some things I said here but I'm not gonna tell which ones are which : )
 
2013-05-29 11:16:58 PM  

Rapmaster2000: The Southern Dandy: Rapmaster2000: A cop told us in high school that marijuana kills more people in one year than alcohol and handguns combined.  Seems legit.

Alcohol combined with hand guns are about the safest thing out there.  I just bought my 5 year old a Glock and a 5th of Jack for his birthday.

Coolest Dad Evar.


In Alabama, that's what they call a "birthday party at Chuck E. Cheese."
 
Displayed 33 of 433 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report