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.

(Salon)   Anti-abortion activists: "We wouldn't murder you if you wouldn't murder babies"   (salon.com) divider line 416
    More: Dumbass, George Tiller, tillers, gun violence, police escort, carrying a gun  
•       •       •

2916 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Aug 2013 at 3:12 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-19 03:54:07 PM  

brap: Congratulations, you are officially a terrorist organization.


We should be checking into the backgrounds of all people who donate to these terrorist organizations.
 
2013-08-19 03:54:09 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: serial_crusher: I really wish people would stop posting that thing.  It's a false dichotomy and presents ridiculous extremes like "expressly protect the mother from all legal consequences." make me confront my farked-up beliefs.


(eyeroll), I'll enumerate my personal beliefs if that'll help.  I don't believe mothers who abort their children should be immune from legal consequences.  I don't approve of either contraception or comprehensive sex ed.  I do think rape exemptions are ok.  Partial birth abortion should be banned along with regular abortion.  I advocate less generous welfare for poor single mothers, but more generous welfare for poor children.  I think the HPV vaccine is a wonderful thing.  I do condemn clinic bombers.  An I don't really know enough about the UN Population Fund to have an opinion one way or another.

So, I'm off the chart for all but 2 of the points it mentions.  It hasn't made me question or confront anything except the credibility of anyone who posts it.  So, let's address the two things where I do hold the position the chart is biatching about:
Rape exemptions - That's the one where I can find common ground with the "my body my choice" crowd.  Rape victim didn't choose to be pregnant, so killing the kid sucks but if she wants to it's her call.  (let's agree to disagree on implicit consent to possible parenthood when consenting to sex)
Clinic bombers - Like I said earlier, only more seriously this time: I don't condone vigilante justice.  If something you disagree with is legal, you're not excused in killing people over it.
 
2013-08-19 03:54:59 PM  

Dafatone: un4gvn666: Dafatone: The Why Not Guy: Nabb1: I think they truly believe that abortion takes a human life, and those lives are worth protecting

The large numbers of pro-lifers willing to make exceptions for rape and incest don't support this claim. I guess some precious innocents are more precious than other precious innocents?

I'm totally and entirely for the right to choose.  I don't much like this argument.  To me, it sounds like most anti-choicers would oppose those exceptions, but view them as a slight compromise.  Let's not punish compromise by flipping it around rhetorically.

So you think they should get credit for merely wanting to control MOST of the women, as opposed to all of the women? No thanks.

It's just a bad way to debate.  "Let's do A." "No, let's do B." "No, let's meet in the middle, much closer to A than B."  "Ha you are willing to compromise at all and therefore you can't truly be right."


When one side makes their money and furthers their cause by saying "A is evil and against everything we stand for," it becomes ridiculous for them to then say "...but we can support A in some circumstances."

The only compromise that should be afforded to someone who is against abortion can be summarized in one sentence: Then don't get one.
 
2013-08-19 03:55:51 PM  

serial_crusher: Nabb1: I asked for your own thoughts on it, and I got a chart instead.

I really wish people would stop posting that thing.  It's a false dichotomy and presents ridiculous extremes like "expressly protect the mother from all legal consequences."

Speaking of,
Theaetetus: Your two cents have previously advocated charging and convicting women who procure abortions with murder, "but maybe not sentencing them too badly," so I'mma say keep your change.

I recall saying that I'm not qualified to make a sentencing decision, but that applies to regular murderers too.  I wouldn't advocate sentencing anybody "too badly", what with cruel and unusual punishment being unconstitutional and all.


So what you're saying is that women who have abortions are not "regular murderers".  Which implies that you think they are, in fact, some kind of murderers.  And that the best treatment for them you can support is not treating them any differently from "regular murderers".
 
2013-08-19 03:56:49 PM  

serial_crusher: A Dark Evil Omen: serial_crusher: I really wish people would stop posting that thing.  It's a false dichotomy and presents ridiculous extremes like "expressly protect the mother from all legal consequences." make me confront my farked-up beliefs.

(eyeroll), I'll enumerate my personal beliefs if that'll help.  I don't believe mothers who abort their children should be immune from legal consequences.  I don't approve of either contraception or comprehensive sex ed.  I do think rape exemptions are ok.  Partial birth abortion should be banned along with regular abortion.  I advocate less generous welfare for poor single mothers, but more generous welfare for poor children.  I think the HPV vaccine is a wonderful thing.  I do condemn clinic bombers.  An I don't really know enough about the UN Population Fund to have an opinion one way or another.

So, I'm off the chart for all but 2 of the points it mentions.  It hasn't made me question or confront anything except the credibility of anyone who posts it.  So, let's address the two things where I do hold the position the chart is biatching about:
Rape exemptions - That's the one where I can find common ground with the "my body my choice" crowd.  Rape victim didn't choose to be pregnant, so killing the kid sucks but if she wants to it's her call.  (let's agree to disagree on implicit consent to possible parenthood when consenting to sex)
Clinic bombers - Like I said earlier, only more seriously this time: I don't condone vigilante justice.  If something you disagree with is legal, you're not excused in killing people over it.


What's your opinion about the approximately 50% of fertilized eggs that fail to implant in a woman's uterus and, consequently, die?
 
2013-08-19 03:57:28 PM  

serial_crusher: I don't believe mothers who abort their children should be immune from legal consequences.


Serious question: do you want miscarriages investigated for murder charges then?

I don't approve of either contraception or comprehensive sex ed.

Serious question: why?
 
2013-08-19 03:58:45 PM  

Serious Black: What's your opinion about the approximately 50% of fertilized eggs that fail to implant in a woman's uterus and, consequently, die?


Any what's your take on IVF, serial_crusher?
 
2013-08-19 03:59:57 PM  
fun fact: abortion does not kill children
 
2013-08-19 04:00:01 PM  
There are only two types of people who I love and will do anything in my power to protect. The unborn and the clinically brain dead. Otherwise use your farking bootstraps!
 
2013-08-19 04:00:29 PM  

Dafatone: Let's not punish compromise by flipping it around rhetorically.


My intention is not to punish compromise - but if someone is willing to say abortion is acceptable based on the circumstance of conception, that tells me they don't truly believe it's the murder of a precious innocent.

Move it ahead a few years to where everyone agrees it's murder. Would you ever say "killing a 3 year old is murder, unless they're the product of rape or incest in which case it's ok"? I sure as hell wouldn't.
 
2013-08-19 04:01:26 PM  
Just following the path from their views on rape.

Can't wait until we officially designate these people as terrorists.
 
2013-08-19 04:01:36 PM  

rwhamann: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Conservatives who oppose a woman's choice to abort do not care about babies.

If they cared about whether babies lived or died, they'd support free pre and postnatal care. They'd support school lunches and public education and children's health programs.

But they don't. Ergo, they don't care about children. They care about controlling female sexuality because it's the only way left now that domestic abuse is illegal, women can vote and drive and earn real pay, and seek divorce. It's the weak man's way of feeling empowered over women.

which is why I'm no longer a Republican, despite still being a born again Christisn who opposes abortion. It's inconceivable to me that God cares about abortion but doesn't care about children starving or income inequality, or for that matter, thousands of Muslim fatalities from war or sanctions.


OK, you might be able to actually fulfill the "pro-life" label.
 
2013-08-19 04:01:48 PM  
That makes perfect sense.
 
2013-08-19 04:02:08 PM  

The Why Not Guy: Dafatone: Let's not punish compromise by flipping it around rhetorically.

My intention is not to punish compromise - but if someone is willing to say abortion is acceptable based on the circumstance of conception, that tells me they don't truly believe it's the murder of a precious innocent.

Move it ahead a few years to where everyone agrees it's murder. Would you ever say "killing a 3 year old is murder, unless they're the product of rape or incest in which case it's ok"? I sure as hell wouldn't.


I agree that the logic sucks.  But that's largely cause I'm on the pro-choice side to begin with.

I don't see how getting the other side to go "well fine!  We'll just say fark it to rape and incest exceptions, if you're holding that against us.  So there!" achieves anything.
 
2013-08-19 04:02:19 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-19 04:02:53 PM  

LarryDan43: The unborn and the clinically brain dead.


To be fair, the types of people who believe this sort of nonsense need the latter to enlarge their ranks so at least there's a valid reason.
 
2013-08-19 04:02:54 PM  

un4gvn666: Isitoveryet: why is it that we never see anti abortion folks with signs saying "we'll take your unwanted child" or "you birth it, we'll do the rest"

Because they don't give a shiat about children. They want to punish women for having recreational sex without long-term consequences.


To the favorites list you go ...
 
2013-08-19 04:03:28 PM  

Nabb1: Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.

Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.


What if a very small group of us do? Kill babies I mean. Adults too if possible and the right criteria presents itself. Myself and a few others have adopted the stance of Pro-Death. Pro abortion, pro death penalty, pro gun violence, ect. Anti congestion on the highway for my commute to work. Because lets be honest, everyone that drives has thought about killing the bastard who just cut you off, or didn't signal, or didn't let you in the lane. Why not see that to fruition? But I thought about it, and the problem doesn't start there, it starts at conception. When two equally selfish parents decide to or accidentally make a baby. Or as I see it, a future driver. So lets thin the herd a little shall we? Start a lottery for mandatory abortions, that way we don't have a to have a lottery for mandatory executions.
 
2013-08-19 04:04:50 PM  

Zeno-25: [i.imgur.com image 450x299]


Reminds me of how the right wing used to hate "the terrorists," until they realized they shared so much in common: a fanatical devotion to a twisted, fundamentalist perversion of their faith, a hatred of the United States government; it made sense, like the last 20 minutes of a John Waters film, that the special somebody they were searching for was right in front of them.
 
2013-08-19 04:04:59 PM  

Dafatone: I don't see how getting the other side to go "well fine!  We'll just say fark it to rape and incest exceptions, if you're holding that against us.  So there!" achieves anything.


I don't think you need to worry about the pro-life movement changing its stance based on my Fark posts.
 
2013-08-19 04:05:36 PM  

The Why Not Guy: Dafatone: I don't see how getting the other side to go "well fine!  We'll just say fark it to rape and incest exceptions, if you're holding that against us.  So there!" achieves anything.

I don't think you need to worry about the pro-life movement changing its stance based on my Fark posts.


Oh.  Okay.  I was worried there for a second.
 
2013-08-19 04:07:03 PM  

Nadie_AZ: un4gvn666: Isitoveryet: why is it that we never see anti abortion folks with signs saying "we'll take your unwanted child" or "you birth it, we'll do the rest"

Because they don't give a shiat about children. They want to punish women for having recreational sex without long-term consequences.

To the favorites list you go ...


Genuinely appreciate it.

Serpentile6: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.

Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.

What if a very small group of us do? Kill babies I mean. Adults too if possible and the right criteria presents itself. Myself and a few others have adopted the stance of Pro-Death. Pro abortion, pro death penalty, pro gun violence, ect. Anti congestion on the highway for my commute to work. Because lets be honest, everyone that drives has thought about killing the bastard who just cut you off, or didn't signal, or didn't let you in the lane. Why not see that to fruition? But I thought about it, and the problem doesn't start there, it starts at conception. When two equally selfish parents decide to or accidentally make a baby. Or as I see it, a future driver. So lets thin the herd a little shall we? Start a lottery for mandatory abortions, that way we don't have a to have a lottery for mandatory executions.


I'm trying not to laugh out loud at work, you bastard...

/I do agree, though, there are too many goddamn people on this planet, especially shiatty drivers
//Particularly in Miami
 
2013-08-19 04:08:53 PM  

ginandbacon: So since fetuses aren't babies, we're all good now, right?


That argument doesn't even matter.  A woman should have a choice to allow or not allow an invasive organism that has a high probability of causing her harm.  If she chooses to have that organism removed from her which results in its death... not really her issue.

Seriously fellas, that "baby" needs to tighten its bootstraps and survive without harming the female incubator.  If it can't, well to bad.
 
2013-08-19 04:09:59 PM  

Serious Black: What's your opinion about the approximately 50% of fertilized eggs that fail to implant in a woman's uterus and, consequently, die?


Accidents happen.  I'm not appalled and outraged against the universe, if that's what you mean.  How do you feel about people dying of old age?  Same thing.

theorellior: I don't approve of either contraception or comprehensive sex ed.

Serious question: why?


crap, that should have said I don't disapprove.  Contraception and sex ed are good things.  If you're going to have sex and don't want to become pregnant, at least take some reasonable measures to reduce the chances.

theorellior: serial_crusher: I don't believe mothers who abort their children should be immune from legal consequences.

Serious question: do you want miscarriages investigated for murder charges then?


Only if there's reasonable suspicion that it was intentional.  They don't automatically investigate all other accidental deaths as murders, do they?

theorellior: Any what's your take on IVF, serial_crusher?


Short version: Stop being vein and adopt instead.
Long version: The common practice of making more embryos than you need and freezing them is immoral.  Kidnapping, more or less.
 
2013-08-19 04:10:19 PM  

theorellior: The only moral abortion is my abortion.


every time I read that article I just want to punch an anti-choice protester in the throat
 
2013-08-19 04:10:37 PM  

Dafatone: I agree that the logic sucks. But that's largely cause I'm on the pro-choice side to begin with.

I don't see how getting the other side to go "well fine! We'll just say fark it to rape and incest exceptions, if you're holding that against us. So there!" achieves anything.


Some of them, perhaps. Others will keep their stance on the rape exception intact and apply that logic consistently to all abortions.
 
2013-08-19 04:11:50 PM  

serial_crusher: Seriously, not trolling or anything.  Would like to know what you guys think.


I don't care what you think.  You are not a pregnant woman.
 
2013-08-19 04:12:10 PM  

Aarontology: Pretty sure "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't have exceptions, pro-lifers.


Numbers Five doesn't have exceptions either.  That holy book is pro-abortion.
 
2013-08-19 04:12:22 PM  

rwhamann: namatad: Nabb1: That's really counter-productive to your goals. If you want to convince people of the barbarity of abortion, which, at some point our civilization undoubtedly will, you don't engage in barbarity yourselves.

But that is not their GOALS. Their goals are to punish poor women who get pregnant and to control women.
That goal is being met in many states.

says who?  I am against abortion because I think it's wrong. I couldn't care less about punishing the mother. Of course, I also support Obamacare and MedicId for all children too, because you can't tell a woman she must carry when she has no means for care for the child after she's done.

Be carefull throwing around accusations. The majority of people I know who are anti abortion are women, are you saying they want to control women?


so you are in favor of the death penalty for the doctor who perform the murder, and the mothers that had the murder done? right?

women should be tested before and after leaving the country.
pregnant women leaving the country pregnant and returning without a baby/still pregnant should be charged with murder, right?

BAH
 
2013-08-19 04:13:42 PM  
Communist Romania, the utopian anti abortion state!

It was one of the late dictator's cruelest commands. At first Romania's birthrate nearly doubled. But poor nutrition and inadequate prenatal care endangered many pregnant women. The country's infant-mortality rate soard to 83 deaths in every 1,000 births (against a Western European average of less than 10 per thousand). About one in 10 babies was born underweight; newborns weighing 1,500 grams (3 pounds, 5 ounces) were classified as miscarriages and denied treatment. Unwanted survivors often ended up in orphanages. "The law only forbade abortion," says Dr. Alexander Floran Anca of Bucharest. "It did nothing to promote life."

Ceausescu made mockery of family planning. He forbade sex education. Books on human sexuality and reproduction were classified as "state secrets," to be used only as medical textbooks. With contraception banned, Romanians had to smuggle in condoms and birth-control pills. Though strictly illegal, abortions remained a widespread birth-control measure of last resort. Nationwide, Western sources estimate, 60 percent of all pregnancies ended in abortion or miscarriage.

The government's enforcement techniques were as bad as the law. Women under the age of 45 were rounded up at their workplaces every one to three months and taken to clinics, where they were examined for signs of pregnancy, often in the presence of government agents - dubbed the "menstrual police" by some Romanians. A pregnant woman who failed to "produce" a baby at the proper time could expect to be summoned for questioning. Women who miscarried were suspected of arranging an abortion. Some doctors resorted for forging statistics. "If a child died in our district, we lost 10 to 25 percent of our salary," says Dr. Geta Stanescu of Bucharest. "But it wasn't our fault: we had no medicine or milk, and the families were poor."


Overplanned Parenthood:
Ceausescu's cruel law


Reasonable people realize that however many negative consequences you can come with for abortion on demand, criminalizing it will only make things much, much worse.
 
2013-08-19 04:14:37 PM  
Dexter and Hanna's baby approves!
 
2013-08-19 04:14:45 PM  

Cpl.D: Numbers Five doesn't have exceptions either. That holy book is pro-abortion.


Maybe that's what modern Christians traded so they wouldn't have to keep kosher.
 
2013-08-19 04:14:47 PM  

serial_crusher: crap, that should have said I don't disapprove. Contraception and sex ed are good things. If you're going to have sex and don't want to become pregnant, at least take some reasonable measures to reduce the chances.


LOL. Okay, then. I might not agree with your "human life begins at conception" take, but I can't fault you for that opinion.
 
2013-08-19 04:15:05 PM  

doglover: Aarontology: Pretty sure "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't have exceptions, pro-lifers.

Actually, the orgiginal translation would be something like "Thou shalt not kill without good reason" or something. This is evidenced in the old testament itself when Moses proceeds to put the calf worshipers (his own people) to the sword as soon as he's off the mountain.


Interestingly, the calf worshipers were the only people that saw Moses drop and shatter the third tablet containing the 11th through 15th Commandments.

Coincidence?
 
2013-08-19 04:17:05 PM  

FloydA: Gietzen is actively calling for people to start shooting clinic patients and escorts.


What if the fetus is going to grow up to be an abortionist?
What then Mr. Gietzen?
 
2013-08-19 04:17:15 PM  

serial_crusher: A Dark Evil Omen: serial_crusher: I really wish people would stop posting that thing.  It's a false dichotomy and presents ridiculous extremes like "expressly protect the mother from all legal consequences." make me confront my farked-up beliefs.

(eyeroll), I'll enumerate my personal beliefs if that'll help.  I don't believe mothers who abort their children should be immune from legal consequences.  I don't approve of either contraception or comprehensive sex ed.  I do think rape exemptions are ok.  Partial birth abortion should be banned along with regular abortion.  I advocate less generous welfare for poor single mothers, but more generous welfare for poor children.  I think the HPV vaccine is a wonderful thing.  I do condemn clinic bombers.  An I don't really know enough about the UN Population Fund to have an opinion one way or another.

So, I'm off the chart for all but 2 of the points it mentions.


Maybe I'm miscounting, but I count more than two: you're on the right side for (i) don't believe mother should be protected from legal consequences; (ii) you oppose contraception and sex ed; (iii) you're fine with exceptions for rape and incest; (iv) you're in favor of banning D&X abortion.

It hasn't made me question or confront anything except the credibility of anyone who posts it.  So, let's address the two things where I do hold the position the chart is biatching about:
Rape exemptions - That's the one where I can find common ground with the "my body my choice" crowd.  Rape victim didn't choose to be pregnant, so killing the kid sucks but if she wants to it's her call.  (let's agree to disagree on implicit consent to possible parenthood when consenting to sex)


But that "agree to disagree" is the fundamental thing we're talking about - if you think that women automatically consent to 9-months of forced pregnancy when they have sex, that's wanting to control women by taking away their ability to consent to specific things. Like, you can consent to sky diving, but not crashing. You can consent to surgery for your hernia, but not castration. You can consent to sex now, but not sex tomorrow. And you can consent to sex, but not pregnancy.
Removing that ability to consent or not consent to various things takes away the ability of a woman to control her own life, which is basically what we're accusing you of wanting to do.

Clinic bombers - Like I said earlier, only more seriously this time: I don't condone vigilante justice.  If something you disagree with is legal, you're not excused in killing people over it.

Note that the clinic bomber one is the only one where the two positions have the same result. It's basically accusing the people who claim to be against clinic bombings as being disingenuous or hypocritical.
 
2013-08-19 04:20:17 PM  

serial_crusher: A Dark Evil Omen: serial_crusher: I really wish people would stop posting that thing.  It's a false dichotomy and presents ridiculous extremes like "expressly protect the mother from all legal consequences." make me confront my farked-up beliefs.

(eyeroll), I'll enumerate my personal beliefs if that'll help.  I don't believe mothers who abort their children should be immune from legal consequences.  I don't approve of either contraception or comprehensive sex ed.  I do think rape exemptions are ok.  Partial birth abortion should be banned along with regular abortion.  I advocate less generous welfare for poor single mothers, but more generous welfare for poor children.  I think the HPV vaccine is a wonderful thing.  I do condemn clinic bombers.  An I don't really know enough about the UN Population Fund to have an opinion one way or another.

So, I'm off the chart for all but 2 of the points it mentions.  It hasn't made me question or confront anything except the credibility of anyone who posts it.  So, let's address the two things where I do hold the position the chart is biatching about:
Rape exemptions - That's the one where I can find common ground with the "my body my choice" crowd.  Rape victim didn't choose to be pregnant, so killing the kid sucks but if she wants to it's her call.  (let's agree to disagree on implicit consent to possible parenthood when consenting to sex)
Clinic bombers - Like I said earlier, only more seriously this time: I don't condone vigilante justice.  If something you disagree with is legal, you're not excused in killing people over it.


So, you believe that one of the worst acts of mass murder in human history is going on right now and you are against resorting to violence to stop it, not out of a belief that all violence is wrong, nor due to any belief that it is an ineffective tactic, but simply because it is against the law?

Fark you asshole.
 
2013-08-19 04:23:09 PM  

serial_crusher: Never been a big fan of vigilante justice myself.  Just make abortion illegal so they kill themselves with complications from their coat hangar abortions.  Probably more painful that way too.




You are a horrible failure as a human being.

Just as there are physical monsters, can there not be mental or psychic monsters born? The face and body may be perfect, but if a twisted gene or malformed egg can produce physical monsters, may not the same process produce a malformed soul?

Monsters are variations from the accepted normal to a greater or a less degree. As a child may be born without an arm, so one may be born without kindness or the potential of conscience. A man who loses his arms in an accident has a great struggle to adjust himself to the lack, but one born without arms suffers only from people who find him strange. Having never had arms, he cannot miss them. To a monster the norm must seem monstrous, since everyone is normal to himself. To the inner monster it must be even more obscure, since he has no visible thing to compare with others. To a criminal, honesty is foolish. You must not forget that a monster is only a variation, and that to a monster the norm is monstrous."
- John Steinbeck, East of Eden
 
2013-08-19 04:23:56 PM  
blogs.kansas.com
derp
 
2013-08-19 04:24:50 PM  

serial_crusher: Serious Black: What's your opinion about the approximately 50% of fertilized eggs that fail to implant in a woman's uterus and, consequently, die?

Accidents happen.  I'm not appalled and outraged against the universe, if that's what you mean.  How do you feel about people dying of old age?  Same thing.

theorellior: I don't approve of either contraception or comprehensive sex ed.

Serious question: why?

crap, that should have said I don't disapprove.  Contraception and sex ed are good things.  If you're going to have sex and don't want to become pregnant, at least take some reasonable measures to reduce the chances.

theorellior: serial_crusher: I don't believe mothers who abort their children should be immune from legal consequences.

Serious question: do you want miscarriages investigated for murder charges then?

Only if there's reasonable suspicion that it was intentional.  They don't automatically investigate all other accidental deaths as murders, do they?

theorellior: Any what's your take on IVF, serial_crusher?

Short version: Stop being vein and adopt instead.
Long version: The common practice of making more embryos than you need and freezing them is immoral.  Kidnapping, more or less.


So you support slavery and hate technology. Actually that is pretty consistent with the Bible carry on.
 
2013-08-19 04:25:01 PM  

serial_crusher: crap, that should have said I don't disapprove.


Earlier count withdrawn. :)

Contraception and sex ed are good things. If you're going to have sex and don't want to become pregnant, at least take some reasonable measures to reduce the chances.

But, here's a question for you... You agree that they're reasonable measures to reduce the chances. But why, if someone takes those reasonable measures, do you believe they've nonetheless consented to pregnancy against their will? Doesn't that position seem to invalidate their efforts?
 
2013-08-19 04:26:13 PM  

un4gvn666: Nadie_AZ: un4gvn666: Isitoveryet: why is it that we never see anti abortion folks with signs saying "we'll take your unwanted child" or "you birth it, we'll do the rest"

Because they don't give a shiat about children. They want to punish women for having recreational sex without long-term consequences.

To the favorites list you go ...

Genuinely appreciate it.

Serpentile6: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.

Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.

What if a very small group of us do? Kill babies I mean. Adults too if possible and the right criteria presents itself. Myself and a few others have adopted the stance of Pro-Death. Pro abortion, pro death penalty, pro gun violence, ect. Anti congestion on the highway for my commute to work. Because lets be honest, everyone that drives has thought about killing the bastard who just cut you off, or didn't signal, or didn't let you in the lane. Why not see that to fruition? But I thought about it, and the problem doesn't start there, it starts at conception. When two equally selfish parents decide to or accidentally make a baby. Or as I see it, a future driver. So lets thin the herd a little shall we? Start a lottery for mandatory abortions, that way we don't have a to have a lottery for mandatory executions.

I'm trying not to laugh out loud at wor ...


Welcome to the fold. I'll have an information packet and T-shirt sent to you as soon as possible.


Welcome to the fold. I'll have an information packet and T-shirt sent to you as soon as possible.
 
2013-08-19 04:28:36 PM  

Theaetetus: Maybe I'm miscounting, but I count more than two: you're on the right side for (i) don't believe mother should be protected from legal consequences; (ii) you oppose contraception and sex ed; (iii) you're fine with exceptions for rape and incest; (iv) you're in favor of banning D&X abortion.


(i) chart applies to people who do believe the mother should be protected from legal consequences
(ii) typo, said opposite of what I meant.  Contraception good.
the other 2, yes I'm on the chart.  But its conclusions are ridiculous.

Theaetetus: But that "agree to disagree" is the fundamental thing we're talking about - if you think that women automatically consent to 9-months of forced pregnancy when they have sex, that's wanting to control women by taking away their ability to consent to specific things. Like, you can consent to sky diving, but not crashing. You can consent to surgery for your hernia, but not castration. You can consent to sex now, but not sex tomorrow. And you can consent to sex, but not pregnancy.
Removing that ability to consent or not consent to various things takes away the ability of a woman to control her own life, which is basically what we're accusing you of wanting to do.


Yeah, but don't characterize that as wanting to take away all ability for a woman to choose, or taking a single specific choice off the table simply because a woman is the one who wants to choose it.  That's where the "war on women" starts getting silly.
 
2013-08-19 04:30:42 PM  
Trayvon(unborn, human child)
www.imperfectparent.com
Zimmerman(illuminati assassin)
seeker401.files.wordpress.com

Really hits home, now. Doesn't it?
 
2013-08-19 04:35:37 PM  

Cpl.D: Aarontology: Pretty sure "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't have exceptions, pro-lifers.

Numbers Five doesn't have exceptions either.  That holy book is pro-abortion.


Numbers 5 doesn't say anything about abortion, hoss. Mentions the woman's womb a few times - "her womb shall fall" - but even if it's empty, the same process is followed, the same swelling/death (or full pardon) occurs. It's about punishing a woman for making her husband suspect she's been unfaithful, which is so totally all for womens' rights.
 
2013-08-19 04:37:11 PM  

serial_crusher: Serious Black: What's your opinion about the approximately 50% of fertilized eggs that fail to implant in a woman's uterus and, consequently, die?

Accidents happen.  I'm not appalled and outraged against the universe, if that's what you mean.  How do you feel about people dying of old age?  Same thing.


This makes very little sense to me. I mean, if you literally believe that the moment egg and sperm fuse starts life, then every time a fertilized egg doesn't implant, that life is dying. Period. It's not necessarily intentional act which means there may be no murder, but it is unequivocally a death.

To borrow your dying of old age issue, we have spent countless trillions of dollars on trying to extend life by a few more months; Medicare has consistently reported that half of their budget goes to patients who are in their last two months of life. We clearly care a great deal about trying to extend life by a month or two even though it is a fact of the universe that people die. But ensuring that fertilized eggs implant and extending their lives by 80+ years isn't important enough to deserve research or funding? That's insane and wildly hypocritical. Every life has merit. Every life is dignified. Right?
 
2013-08-19 04:39:18 PM  

Dafatone: The Why Not Guy: Dafatone: Let's not punish compromise by flipping it around rhetorically.

My intention is not to punish compromise - but if someone is willing to say abortion is acceptable based on the circumstance of conception, that tells me they don't truly believe it's the murder of a precious innocent.

Move it ahead a few years to where everyone agrees it's murder. Would you ever say "killing a 3 year old is murder, unless they're the product of rape or incest in which case it's ok"? I sure as hell wouldn't.

I agree that the logic sucks.  But that's largely cause I'm on the pro-choice side to begin with.

I don't see how getting the other side to go "well fine!  We'll just say fark it to rape and incest exceptions, if you're holding that against us.  So there!" achieves anything.


Well, it does get them to be intellectually consistent, and also exposes the true repugnance of their agenda to the American people.
 
2013-08-19 04:39:31 PM  

Voiceofreason01: "Coalition for life" huh? What a sick euphemism.


I'm gonna start a new list.

List of words and phrases "Conservatives" have destroyed the meaning of:
Pro-life
Fiscal responsibility
Family
Conservative
Socialist/Communist
 
2013-08-19 04:41:25 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

"South Wind escorts antagonize and provocatively taunt the pro-life volunteers on the site in ways that make serious violence more likely." He said that the nearby homes in the same neighborhood as the clinic would "continuously be in the line of fire."

kansasmeadowlark.com

We do not have volunteer escorts at this clinic because the women can be driven past the protesters right up to the door.

t3.gstatic.com

It's still your fault if one of them gets shot!
 
2013-08-19 04:41:42 PM  

Emposter: Voiceofreason01: "Coalition for life" huh? What a sick euphemism.

I'm gonna start a new list.

List of words and phrases "Conservatives" have destroyed the meaning of:
Pro-life
Fiscal responsibility
Family
Conservative
Socialist/Communist


Personal responsibility is at the top of the list.
 
Displayed 50 of 416 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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