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
    More: Dumbass, George Tiller, tillers, gun violence, police escort, carrying a gun  
•       •       •

2927 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Aug 2013 at 3:12 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-08-19 01:25:52 PM  
10 votes:

vygramul: ginandbacon: vygramul: (Modern medicine doesn't help because of how it can save profoundly premature babies.)

No it can't. And again, they aren't babies.

And again, that's the point of contention, and it's not resolvable.

And yes, modern medicine can save premature babies that only 20 years ago didn't have a chance. So long as medicine pushes the frontier back, it reinforces the opinion that fetuses are babies. If you could conclusively demonstrate otherwise, there wouldn't be a debate. (Well, there's always the flat-earth and time-cube people, but you know what I mean.)


Viability has basically been the same since we figured out ventilation and developed vaccines for RSV. "Profoundly premature" fetuses still die. You don't get to any real chances of survival until 26 weeks, by which point, no one is even having an abortion unless there is some horrible fetal abnormality. Only one percent of abortions occur after 21 weeks. Since we haven't been able to impact viability under 24 weeks at all for almost 2 decades, I have NO farking idea what you think you are talking about.

I am also remembering now that I am pretty sure you show up in every abortion thread spouting the same lies and misinformation.

I need to start farkying people.
2013-08-19 01:32:54 PM  
8 votes:
So, can we finally stop the charade of calling these people "pro-life" now?
2013-08-19 06:00:21 PM  
7 votes:
My whole issue with the "Having sex confers consent to being forced to go thru a pregnancy and then a medical procedure which may include tearing open your abdominal wall, if you are unlucky, all to protect the life of someone else," is that we don't create implied consent in any other circumstance.  Ever.

There are no, absolutely, no medical procedure we force, thru governmental coercion, people to go thru to help save the life of another person.  I can drive drunk, hit a child, and have the only blood that can save that child, and no one can force me to donate that blood.  I can beat someone so badly that they need one of my kidneys to live, and no one will force me to give that person a kidney.  We don't even take organs from DEAD people to help living people, if it is not made clear that the dead person would wish to.  We don't even force people to try to save another person life, even if that effort would be minimal.

But women, by having sex, are going to be forced to provide 9 months of biological support and have to undergo a medical procedure much more invasive than just giving blood to save someone else?  Ridiculous.  Keep abortions legal, safe and used as often as they need be.


/father of 3, wife pregnant with #4
2013-08-19 02:03:12 PM  
7 votes:
Pro lifers are a very strange and paradoxical bunch. They kill in the name of preserving life and restrict the rights of others in the name of freedom. I find that a most curious way to live ones life.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-19 01:11:50 PM  
6 votes:

vygramul: And yes, modern medicine can save premature babies that only 20 years ago didn't have a chance. So long as medicine pushes the frontier back, it reinforces the opinion that fetuses are babies. If you could conclusively demonstrate otherwise, there wouldn't be a debate. (Well, there's always the flat-earth and time-cube people, but you know what I mean.)


No, but the contention isn't over where to draw the line.  The anti-abortion people pretty much all draw it at conception.  I don't think that there is any way you can make a case that a fertilized egg is a baby.  That's like claiming that an acorn is an oak tree.

That's not a question of biology, that's simply a religious opinion.
2013-08-19 05:03:44 PM  
5 votes:

serial_crusher: The problem in abortion debates is people start trying to make silly rhetorical arguments about how we should ban all women from doing anything fun because they might be pregnant!


Note that your argument earlier was that if women want to avoid nine months of pregnancy and labor, they have to not have sex.
2013-08-19 04:11:50 PM  
5 votes:

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 02:49:32 PM  
5 votes:

vygramul: FloydA: So, can we finally stop the charade of calling these people "pro-life" now?

Some of them are true to that term, some are not. But really, it's a politically-motivated choice, just like pro-choice is. There's really no reason not to call someone what they want to be called. I suppose it might be helpful if all one wants is an ideologically satisfying hostile confrontation, but if one wishes to convince people, pissing them off by calling them names isn't going to help.



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

We can debate whether or not a blastocyst is a "person," but there is no question that the adults entering that clinic are people. Gietzen is urging his supporters to murder them.  Once a person starts advocating murder, he loses the privilege of calling himself "pro-life."
2013-08-19 12:45:42 PM  
5 votes:

The My Little Pony Killer: And whoever interviewed them took that answer seriously instead of laughing right in their delusional faces?

Let's stop allowing these people to believe they have a point.


Or stop allowing them to be.

Don't we have a DHS? Aren't they now an admitted terrorist group if they said they're gonna kill people? Zip ties, hoods, and black vans. Play this by the numbers.
2013-08-19 12:24:32 PM  
5 votes:
And whoever interviewed them took that answer seriously instead of laughing right in their delusional faces?

Let's stop allowing these people to believe they have a point.
2013-08-19 12:00:31 PM  
5 votes:
So since fetuses aren't babies, we're all good now, right?
2013-08-19 11:59:12 AM  
5 votes:
Pretty sure "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't have exceptions, pro-lifers.
2013-08-19 05:18:22 PM  
4 votes:

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: And one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. car accident, is getting treated by the EMTs. Or, similarly, one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. pregnancy, is getting an abortion. Certainly, not wanting to get pregnant doesn't exempt you from having to get an abortion if you get unlucky, no?

The big difference there is that the EMTs usually don't have to kill anybody else to help you out. If you were looking at a broken leg with 9 months worth of rehab time, the EMTs wouldn't be justified in killing a bystander to harvest his leg and give you a transplant.  You'd have to just suck it up and do your 9 months of rehab.


Exactly! And in this case, the woman is the bystander who isn't required to help the fetus with 9 months of rehab, even if it'll die.
2013-08-19 05:01:21 PM  
4 votes:

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: 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?

No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.


That's a different question, having to do with acceptable risk. My question was why you believe that it's consent.
For example, you can reduce the probability of fatal car accidents by driving slowly, only during the day, in nice weather, and wearing your seatbelt, but if you want to avoid them altogether, you have to choose not to drive... But that doesn't mean that you consent to dying if you do drive.

Simply not wanting a particular result doesn't exempt you from having to deal with that result should you get unlucky.

And one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. car accident, is getting treated by the EMTs. Or, similarly, one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. pregnancy, is getting an abortion. Certainly, not wanting to get pregnant doesn't exempt you from having to get an abortion if you get unlucky, no?

I liken it to gambling.  You can make smart bets and you can make stupid bets.  But even if you make the smartest bet in the world, sometimes you get unlucky.  You can't just shrug your shoulders and tell the dealer you'd like your chips back.


Agreed, just like the pregnant woman can't take back the sex. However, she has multiple options to select from to deal with that, just like you have the option to go get some money from the ATM or have your knees broken by the bouncer... but for some reason, you want to take away the "get some money" option. Do you consent to having your knees broken every time you gamble, just because it's a possibility if you're really unlucky? Of course not. At most, you consent to making a choice in the future as to what to do if you incur a debt, just like a woman who has sex, at most, consents to making a choice in the future if she gets pregnant.
2013-08-19 03:32:04 PM  
4 votes:
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.
2013-08-19 03:27:48 PM  
4 votes:

Nabb1: Apart from seeming inconsistencies in the positions of some people, I am just curious as to why opposition to abortion is constantly couched by pro-choice persons in those terms.


Because the people who are rabid about banning abortion won't stop at just banning the practice. There are several countries in which miscarriages must be reported and investigated as possible abortions, with criminal charges for the mother. There are people who want to have a rational discussion and compromise about abortion and US law, but those aren't the people who are pushing present legislation.
2013-08-19 03:23:23 PM  
4 votes:
2013-08-19 03:03:58 PM  
4 votes:

serial_crusher: One of the common arguments I hear in favor of abortion is that regardless of the fetus's personhood or rights, it's wrong for another person to latch onto your body and use your organs without your continued consent. When I argue that consenting up front at the beginning of pregnancy locks you in to a 9 month commitment that you can't get out of, I'm told I'm a monster.


Yep. Mainly because you say that "if a woman has sex, she consents to a 9 month commitment, regardless of any of her attempts to avoid said commitment".
It's only consistent if you're anti-sex, which is monstrous.

Until now I never thought to ask the question, why is it ok to lock her in during the third trimester?

Pragmatism. Contrary to Nematoad's screed above, there aren't any women who change their mind during the last trimester and get an abortion. Rather, as ginandbacon said, late term abortions are due to horrible catastrophes that occur to mothers who want their babies. They deserve our sympathy and understanding of their choice when faced with such a horrible dilemma, rather than threats to beat them like baby seals. That's monstrous, too.

In one recent thread Theaetetus and I talked about possible advances in science allowing you to transfer an early-term fetus to a willing recipient instead of killing it. Her take seemed to be that killing it would still be ok, if the abortion procedure was safer for the mother than the transfer.

Yes, people are entitled to make medical decisions for themselves. Also, the fact that you presume that I'm female based on my argument is somewhat telling.

My two cents, the baby should come out in the way safest to the baby, only when a doctor (or biology) says it should come out.

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.
2013-08-19 02:20:29 PM  
4 votes:

vygramul: namatad: vygramul: There's also a gradient of opinion on abortion. There are people who are ok with the day-after pill but are appalled at the idea of third-trimester abortions unless the mother's life is at risk.

I am pretty certain that that covers everyone.
NO ONE in favor of abortion and a women's right to choose is in favor of late term abortions because the crazy biatch changed her mind.
Late is completely illegal except in case of serious risk to the mother's life.

Women who have a late term abortion because they change their minds should be beaten like seal cubs.

But how can one justify being opposed to a late-term abortion if the fetus is not a baby until birth?


"Late term" abortions are emergency medical procedures. You're both callous and ignorant if you don't understand that. They come up mostly because of horrific defects in the fetus. Fark would ban me if I posted images of what is being aborted. The mothers health is very rarely an issue that far along although it does come up and should also be considered an emergency.
2013-08-19 02:12:54 PM  
4 votes:

Weaver95: Pro lifers are a very strange and paradoxical bunch. They kill in the name of preserving life and restrict the rights of others in the name of freedom. I find that a most curious way to live ones life.


You left out the part where they only care about the fetus. Once it becomes a baby, they are ok with it not having food or healthcare.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-19 01:43:58 PM  
4 votes:

vygramul: Some of them are true to that term, some are not. But really, it's a politically-motivated choice, just like pro-choice is. There's really no reason not to call someone what they want to be called. I suppose it might be helpful if all one wants is an ideologically satisfying hostile confrontation, but if one wishes to convince people, pissing them off by calling them names isn't going to help.


I think the pro-choice position is more about personal and religious freedom than politics, and I'm pretty sure that most of the anti-abortion types are looking for a confrontation.  They want to establish their dominance.  They generally don't seem to care too much for life in my experience.
2013-08-19 12:30:14 PM  
4 votes:
If someone outside a clinic kills someone inside, it's not the fault of the guy outside - it's the fault of the dead person.

Can we not extent this logic and personhood to the unborn?  That way, any time a baby is murdered, it's not the fault of the doctor of the mother - after all, the kid drove them to it.
2013-08-19 09:21:49 PM  
3 votes:
It will never stop creeping me out that there are this many people in the United States who think I should have to take their religious beliefs into account when deciding on my own medical care.

The fact that they're a powerful lobby and that they're actually managing to affect the medical choices of real women every day makes me sick to my stomach.
2013-08-19 05:41:47 PM  
3 votes:

serial_crusher: Your freedom of choice is great until somebody else's life is at stake. It's why the argument over whether the embryo is a person or not is relevant.


Not really. Say your bookie needed a kidney or would die. Can your bookie force you to undergo surgery and 9 months of rehab so that they can have your kidney, against your will?
Even a person has no right to do that to another person, their own impending doom notwithstanding. Hence why the debate over whether an embryo is a person or not is irrelevant.
2013-08-19 04:48:34 PM  
3 votes:

serial_crusher: I liken it to gambling.


Except medical science has made it so that it is actually nothing at all like gambling. What you are arguing for is akin to opposing the double-down option at the blackjack table, regardless of whether it will help your current situation, simply because you morally oppose it. And what's more, you'd like to make sure that, because you personally object to use of the double-down option, the casino must forbid any other player at any other table from using said option. That's not principled, that's just ignorant.
2013-08-19 04:10:19 PM  
3 votes:

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 04:02:19 PM  
3 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-08-19 03:51:46 PM  
3 votes:

vygramul: FloydA: So, can we finally stop the charade of calling these people "pro-life" now?

Some of them are true to that term, some are not. But really, it's a politically-motivated choice, just like pro-choice is. There's really no reason not to call someone what they want to be called. I suppose it might be helpful if all one wants is an ideologically satisfying hostile confrontation, but if one wishes to convince people, pissing them off by calling them names isn't going to help.


Except that "pro-choice" people actually are pro-choice -- whatever their own personal feelings are on abortion, and there are many that have an intense dislike for the idea, they believe it's the woman's right to choose to carry the baby en potentia to term, or not.

OTOH, "pro-life" people are nothing of the sort.  Many do not care if the child will be stillborn, if the pregnancy will kill the mother, if the child will be profoundly disabled, if the mother will actually be able to take care of the child, etc.  Simply put, they care only that the child is carried as close to term as the mother possibly can, and damn the consequences.  And once the child is born, it's on its own.    And that's not even getting into the murderous asshats like those in TFA.

People who are actually pro-life would do their damnedest to ensure that all life is preserved to the best of their ability.  "Pro-lifers" do nothing of the sort, once you leave abortion out of the picture.
2013-08-19 03:50:09 PM  
3 votes:
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"
2013-08-19 03:44:34 PM  
3 votes:

Mercutio74: Dafatone: The "you need to have an ultrasound shoved up your vagina before you can have an abortion" law that's being passed all over the place. What does that achieve other than more or less raping the mother?

It's clearly punitive and restrictive, so it's pretty much accomplished everything it set out to do.  Or did you think that such laws were actually based on medical reasons?


Obviously, they aren't.  Nabb1 is asking why people keep thinking anti-choicers want to punish women.  This is an example of punishing women.

It's also actually rape, as far as I'm concerned.  It's hard to give consent when there's that much of a "let us do this to you or else" hanging over your head.
2013-08-19 03:36:35 PM  
3 votes:

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.

2013-08-19 03:34:49 PM  
3 votes:

rwhamann: 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.


You're a minority in that. Check abortion law in Latin American countries. Mandatory investigation of all miscarriages, because nothing should sully the precious fetus. The woman is merely a vessel for her holy offspring. This is what the American Taliban wants, and will get it any way they can.

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?

How many women do you know? There are plenty of women who want to control other women and keep them from being evil, evil trollops who have sinful slutty sex and enjoy their bodies like the whores they are.
2013-08-19 03:34:42 PM  
3 votes:

Nabb1: I doubt you actually read the actual decision. No offense, but the Justices clearly recognized the passions on both sides of the debate, and even Justice White said the trimester system they created was probably imperfect, but they did the best they could based on medical science as it was then, and he said that in the future, as medical science advanced, it would be prudent to revise that. Of course, that hasn't happened, but that's what the Court seemingly hoped for at the time.


No offense taken.  I have read some of it, but I rely on summaries to be sure.  You lawyers take too long to say anything.   I guess my point was that it was decided that abortions are legal and that your statement of both sides (as passionate as they may be) need to come to a consensus seems a bit ridiculous to me.  I see only one side that needs to "get over it".  Pro-choicers just want to be left alone to do what is a legal medical procedure.  Lifers want to stick their nose in someone else's decision because they feel morally obligated to do so even though the USSC said abortions (under certain circumstances, yes) are legal.
2013-08-19 03:33:46 PM  
3 votes:

Nabb1: ikanreed: Nabb1: Theaetetus: 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.

[www.amptoons.com image 575x1330]

Okay. Well, I asked for your own thoughts on it, and I got a chart instead.

That chart describes exactly the justification for his premise in a quite thorough way.  His own thoughts would be a less presentable version of the same thing, that would take longer to read, be more likely to lack readability due to lack of editing, and not contain formatting to make the argument clear.

I'm not sure why the chart isn't a valid response to your question.

It's not a valid or invalid response in and of itself, it just seems odd for a person who I know to be intelligent and articulate to go that route. Disappointment more than anything.


As I said, how do you know I didn't make that chart? It seems now that you're just attempting to dodge my points, rather than actually responding substantively to them. "Oh, I'm disappointed... that's why I can't actually identify any flaws in your logic: crushing disappointment."
Frankly, your disappointment is not a valid response to my chart.
2013-08-19 03:32:31 PM  
3 votes:

serial_crusher: One of the common arguments I hear in favor of abortion is that regardless of the fetus's personhood or rights, it's wrong for another person to latch onto your body and use your organs without your continued consent.  When I argue that consenting up front at the beginning of pregnancy locks you in to a 9 month commitment that you can't get out of, I'm told I'm a monster.


Well, of course you are.  In what way does that position not make you a monster?
2013-08-19 03:23:02 PM  
3 votes:

Nabb1: Theaetetus: 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.

[www.amptoons.com image 575x1330]

Okay. Well, I asked for your own thoughts on it, and I got a chart instead.


That chart describes exactly the justification for his premise in a quite thorough way.  His own thoughts would be a less presentable version of the same thing, that would take longer to read, be more likely to lack readability due to lack of editing, and not contain formatting to make the argument clear.

I'm not sure why the chart isn't a valid response to your question.
2013-08-19 03:22:00 PM  
3 votes:

Nabb1: The problem with the abortion "debate" is that people let their passions get so inflamed that they spend more time trying to characterize their opposition's motives as evil more than trying to come to a consensus or compromise.


I thought we did that in 1973.
2013-08-19 03:21:42 PM  
3 votes:
i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com
2013-08-19 03:13:20 PM  
3 votes:

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.


www.amptoons.com
2013-08-19 02:17:23 PM  
3 votes:

vygramul: namatad: vygramul: There's also a gradient of opinion on abortion. There are people who are ok with the day-after pill but are appalled at the idea of third-trimester abortions unless the mother's life is at risk.

I am pretty certain that that covers everyone.
NO ONE in favor of abortion and a women's right to choose is in favor of late term abortions because the crazy biatch changed her mind.
Late is completely illegal except in case of serious risk to the mother's life.

Women who have a late term abortion because they change their minds should be beaten like seal cubs.

But how can one justify being opposed to a late-term abortion if the fetus is not a baby until birth?


society has always included the concept of viability in its laws. when you killed a mother who was gravid, you were guilty of killing her unborn. when you killed a women, who was 1 week pregnant and no one knew, you were jsut guilty of killing the mother.

TBH - I am in favor of retroactive abortion of people who are trolls pretending to be that dumb. but go ahead.
2013-08-19 01:30:17 PM  
3 votes:

The My Little Pony Killer: vygramul: ginandbacon: vygramul: (Modern medicine doesn't help because of how it can save profoundly premature babies.)

No it can't. And again, they aren't babies.

And again, that's the point of contention, and it's not resolvable.

And yes, modern medicine can save premature babies that only 20 years ago didn't have a chance. So long as medicine pushes the frontier back, it reinforces the opinion that fetuses are babies. If you could conclusively demonstrate otherwise, there wouldn't be a debate. (Well, there's always the flat-earth and time-cube people, but you know what I mean.)

They can believe all they want about the thing growing in my body, the fact of the matter is that any actual action regarding the thing in my body stops at... wait for it... me.

They can believe all they want about it, that doesn't stop it from being mine and mine alone.


I'm with you, Sister. But people also can't be allowed to flat out lie for the sake of concern trolling either. And yeah: my uterus, my business.
2013-08-19 01:14:37 PM  
3 votes:

vygramul: ginandbacon: vygramul: (Modern medicine doesn't help because of how it can save profoundly premature babies.)

No it can't. And again, they aren't babies.

And again, that's the point of contention, and it's not resolvable.

And yes, modern medicine can save premature babies that only 20 years ago didn't have a chance. So long as medicine pushes the frontier back, it reinforces the opinion that fetuses are babies. If you could conclusively demonstrate otherwise, there wouldn't be a debate. (Well, there's always the flat-earth and time-cube people, but you know what I mean.)


They can believe all they want about the thing growing in my body, the fact of the matter is that any actual action regarding the thing in my body stops at... wait for it... me.

They can believe all they want about it, that doesn't stop it from being mine and mine alone.
2013-08-19 12:46:50 PM  
3 votes:
When a woman gets infected by a man, it's no one else's business when it comes to the course of treatment she decides upon.
2013-08-19 12:35:40 PM  
3 votes:

vygramul: (Modern medicine doesn't help because of how it can save profoundly premature babies.)


No it can't. And again, they aren't babies.
2013-08-19 11:59:56 AM  
3 votes:
I wonder if Kansas has a "stand your ground" law. They're all but flat out calling on prolifers to murder clinic staff.

Again.

I know if I was escorting patients at this clinic, I'd have a sidearm.
2013-08-19 11:20:52 PM  
2 votes:

CanisNoir: Genevieve Marie: Yea, no. Not even a little bit. There are no doubt complicated philosophical issues around when life begins, and I have my own ideas about it, but that still doesn't take away from the fact that no one else's philosophical or spiritual beliefs should impact my ability to make choices about my own healthcare. Abortion should ALWAYS be between a woman, her medical team, her partner if he's in the picture, and her own conscience, and no one else's personal beliefs have any business determining her medical options.

Except in the case of personhood is determined to exist at or shortly after conception. At that point, an abortion is infringing upon another persons inalienable right to life. The government maintains the authority to forcibly keep people from the general population (Sorry the exact word I'm looking for eludes me) if they happen to be carrying a highly contagious and deadly disease. It's not out of a wish to keep down or control the disease carrier but a wish to protect the innocent people that might be infected and therefore killed because of it. The same principle applies - once personhood is assigned, then that persons rights come into play as well and must be considered.


Except that there is absolutely no medical or scientific reason for assigning "personhood" to a fetus at or shortly after conception. That comes down to individual religious/philosophical beliefs which vary by individual, and therefore it can't be a legal standard that's used to determine the medical rights of ALL women.

And even if there was? An individual person still has no legal right to another person's body. Just as you can't legally compel someone to donate a kidney, you can't legally compel someone to share their uterus for nine months. You don't just want to give a fetus personhood rights, you want to give it separate rights that don't exist for anyone else.
2013-08-19 06:55:27 PM  
2 votes:

A Dark Evil Omen: serial_crusher: The AlbinoSaxon:

serial_crusher:
The problem in abortion debates is people start trying to make silly rhetorical arguments about how we should ban all women from doing anything fun because they might be pregnant!

Yeah, you would know a little about that.

serial_crusher:
No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.

Government's goal shouldn't be to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies to zero, if that's what you're getting at.  At least, not now because the cost of implementing it would be too high.

It's enough to deal with unwanted outcomes when they arise.  On an individual level, that means manning up and being a parent to the child you created.  On a governmental level, that means punishing parents who fail to live up to their responsibilities (either by neglecting their children or killing them).

"It is the appropriate role of government to do the stupid, needlessly punitive thing that doesn't produce any good effects because reasons and also furthermore." You're hilarious.


Don't forget more expensive in addition to that. Birth control is cheap compared to pregnancy, birth, supporting a healthy baby. Even more so if there are complications with the pregnancy.
2013-08-19 06:53:06 PM  
2 votes:

serial_crusher: The AlbinoSaxon:

serial_crusher:
The problem in abortion debates is people start trying to make silly rhetorical arguments about how we should ban all women from doing anything fun because they might be pregnant!

Yeah, you would know a little about that.

serial_crusher:
No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.

Government's goal shouldn't be to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies to zero, if that's what you're getting at.  At least, not now because the cost of implementing it would be too high.

It's enough to deal with unwanted outcomes when they arise.  On an individual level, that means manning up and being a parent to the child you created.  On a governmental level, that means punishing parents who fail to live up to their responsibilities (either by neglecting their children or killing them).


"It is the appropriate role of government to do the stupid, needlessly punitive thing that doesn't produce any good effects because reasons and also furthermore." You're hilarious.
2013-08-19 06:45:58 PM  
2 votes:

serial_crusher:
The problem in abortion debates is people start trying to make silly rhetorical arguments about how we should ban all women from doing anything fun because they might be pregnant!


Yeah, you would know a little about that.

serial_crusher:
No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.

2013-08-19 06:23:44 PM  
2 votes:

Repo Man: And I can easily imagine these same people, after having achieved their goal of outlawing abortion, faced with the number of women dying at the hands of underground abortionists protesting "This isn't what we wanted at all!" If you advocate a position, you have to be ready to take responsibility for its consequences, both intended and unintended.


When I was a lad, my family was a part of the pro-life movement (went to protests, all that jazz), and we were always drilled into our head that there were a million people looking to adopt right now! And there were a million abortions or so a year, so all those babies, if allowed to be born, would be able to go to those loving homes, today.

But, this got me thinking.  What happens after all those million babies get adopted?  Or even if 3/4 of the newly born are kept, what happens in four years? Because, at some point, all those people looking to adopt, will have adopted.  What you got left are millions of unwanted children, without homes, with no one supporting them financially but the government, living in orphanages/unwanted childrens' homes.  Just like we used to have in the days before legal abortion.  Once I started on that train of thought, it wasn't long before I realized that there was no utopia at the end of the "outlaw all abortions" road, just a lot of nightmares.
2013-08-19 05:28:41 PM  
2 votes:

vygramul: *facepalm*

Pro-choice and pro-life are both only in this context. Duh. That's the point.


Actually, the point is that "pro-life" is purportedly premised on the sacredness of life in general, whereas in practice it amounts to nothing more than wanting some specific medical procedures to be made or kept illegal. It would be like if a movement claimed to be against the death penalty when in reality they were only against hanging... and were apparently alright with firing squads, lethal injections and electric chairs.

The pro-choice argument on the other hand, makes no sweeping claims that lend themselves to these kinds of internal contradictions - likely because this argument is based not in religion but on a modern, civilized understanding of rights and ethics.
2013-08-19 05:21:57 PM  
2 votes:

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: 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?

No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.  Simply not wanting a particular result doesn't exempt you from having to deal with that result should you get unlucky.

I liken it to gambling.  You can make smart bets and you can make stupid bets.  But even if you make the smartest bet in the world, sometimes you get unlucky.  You can't just shrug your shoulders and tell the dealer you'd like your chips back.


So you are in the "punish them for having sex" group. Gotcha.


/an abortion is dealing with the result.
2013-08-19 03:54:59 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:52:49 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2013-08-19 03:50:09 PM  
2 votes:
Gietzen refused to say whether he or his fellow protesters are armed. "That's not a polite question to ask an individual," Gietzen said. "That's why it's concealed."

Oh fark you.
2013-08-19 03:48:59 PM  
2 votes:
Weird how so few people who claim to be in favor of "life" never protest here:

cdn01.dailycaller.com

You'd never believe what their primary job is. And they're not bombing little gobs of goo that may or may not be people.
2013-08-19 03:20:18 PM  
2 votes:
The logical implications of "life begins at conception" lead to a pretty horrific society for women, given how common miscarriages are. And if we want to criminalize abortion, every miscarriage is going to need at least a cursory investigation by a qualified doctor and a a law enforcement agent.

Further, since women may not know that they're pregnant, any woman engaging in many activities (alcohol consumption, tobacco use, etc.) while pregnant could be endangering a life. It leads to just absurd restrictions on women and completely ignores fundamental biological concepts.

Now conversly, there's certainly a point where a fetus developes to the point where sustained brain activity and fetal viability mean it needs to be considered a person and elective abortion should no longer be an option. I'm not a biologist/ethicist/whatever so I couldn't tell you where that point is, but 20 - 24 weeks seems reasonable to me. I actually sort of think this is an issue where the status quo (Federally, at least) is spot on.
2013-08-19 03:17:05 PM  
2 votes:

Nabb1: 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.


Because more often than not, they also oppose things like comprehensive sex education, easy access to birth control and family planning, which would dramatically reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and therefore, the number of abortions. If they were truly "pro-life" instead of anti-sex zealots, they would be supportive of things that would do a lot to prevent the abortions they so hate.

It's not necessarily wanting to control the lives of women, but since they are the only ones biologically capable of becoming pregnant, they bear the brunt of the policies pro-lifers support. Informing people of contraception and having easier access to it shouldn't be the same sort of moral issue that abortion access is, yet they continually oppose it in favor of "abstinence only" which simply doesn't work on a societal scale.
2013-08-19 02:30:47 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2013-08-19 02:30:32 PM  
2 votes:
If we're going to use medical technological advances in regard to premature birth survivability as a baseline for when a fetus becomes a baby, then that means denying a woman and the premature baby/fetus all the proper care necessary so that it survives due to inability to pay for it, or lack of proper hospital resources for those technologies is nothing more than committing an abortion, just as if the woman had decided to terminate it directly.
2013-08-19 02:20:16 PM  
2 votes:

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.


It's like you aren't even trying anymore...that was just very lazy and sloppy.
2013-08-19 02:13:57 PM  
2 votes:

namatad: Weaver95: Pro lifers are a very strange and paradoxical bunch. They kill in the name of preserving life and restrict the rights of others in the name of freedom. I find that a most curious way to live ones life.

You left out the part where they only care about the fetus. Once it becomes a baby, they are ok with it not having food or healthcare.


I thought that part was obvious. They hate you once you are born...but they'll murder others to make sure you get out of the womb.
2013-08-19 02:11:47 PM  
2 votes:

vygramul: There's also a gradient of opinion on abortion. There are people who are ok with the day-after pill but are appalled at the idea of third-trimester abortions unless the mother's life is at risk.


I am pretty certain that that covers everyone.
NO ONE in favor of abortion and a women's right to choose is in favor of late term abortions because the crazy biatch changed her mind.
Late is completely illegal except in case of serious risk to the mother's life.

Women who have a late term abortion because they change their minds should be beaten like seal cubs.
2013-08-19 02:10:54 PM  
2 votes:
Congratulations, you are officially a terrorist organization.
2013-08-19 01:49:23 PM  
2 votes:
And just FYI, fetuses aren't even resuscitated at 22 weeks since there is no way they can survive and thrive. That's one week after the overwhelming majority of abortions take place.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-19 12:48:10 PM  
2 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: When a woman gets infected by a man, it's no one else's business when it comes to the course of treatment she decides upon.


That sort of STD can be a pain.  Especially the teen years.
2013-08-20 07:48:38 AM  
1 vote:

CanisNoir: The government maintains the authority to forcibly keep people from the general population (Sorry the exact word I'm looking for eludes me) if they happen to be carrying a highly contagious and deadly disease. It's not out of a wish to keep down or control the disease carrier but a wish to protect the innocent people that might be infected and therefore killed because of it. The same principle applies - once personhood is assigned, then that persons rights come into play as well and must be considered.


If a person was dying and needed a lung/kidney transplant do you think the government should be able to force compatible donors to undergo surgery to save the person's life? If every life is sacred and we can force a women to carry a baby for 9 months why can't we force people to donate organs.
2013-08-19 09:08:27 PM  
1 vote:
Participating in this thread has inspired me to write a play.

Setting: a cocktail party

The Why Not Guy: Hi, nice to meet you.
Fred: You too, thanks.
The Why Not Guy: So what do you do?
Fred: I'm an advocate for a group that wants to outlaw reading books
The Why Not Guy: Oh, wow. What would the penalty be for someone who reads a book?
Fred: That's a stupid question which I won't answer seriously, and your name sucks too.

The End.
2013-08-19 07:59:44 PM  
1 vote:

CanisNoir: Serpentile6: Because it isn't illegal here. It is the same conversation and saber rattling that has been going on for decades. I've seen the same arguments here on fark every time there is an abortion thread, just by different people. I will say that The Why Not Guy is at least a perfect name choice for this type of debate.

It's not illegal here true, but the purpose behind the Pro-Life Movement is to criminalize it because they feel that it is ending the life of a defenseless innocent. Therefore I think a valid question is, if your goals are met (criminalizing abortion) under what judicial punishment scheme should it fall. Likewise, the easy answer, if you're Pro-Life because you feel it is ending the life of the unborn, is to say under the same guidelines of ending a life in any other form. It certainly leaves less room for more distraction than say, answering with, "stone them".


That bolded part, though, is exactly why pro-lifers dance around it or don't want to answer it outright. They are having a hard enough time getting people to support their point of view for making abortion illegal. To add prosecuting women and doctors for murder/manslaughter/etc on top of that, they'd have an even harder time getting political support or even keeping the support they already have.
2013-08-19 07:52:40 PM  
1 vote:

serial_crusher: Government-provided birth control would be alright if people used it, but it's not going to completely eliminate unwanted pregnancies.  You'd have a hard time doing that cheaper than dealing with unwanted children.


Unwanted children are invariably more expensive to take care of than providing birth control.  Same with abortions.
2013-08-19 06:38:10 PM  
1 vote:

austerity101: Repo Man: And I can easily imagine these same people, after having achieved their goal of outlawing abortion, faced with the number of women dying at the hands of underground abortionists protesting "This isn't what we wanted at all!" If you advocate a position, you have to be ready to take responsibility for its consequences, both intended and unintended.

Coincidentally, I brought up this very problem with serial_crusher in a previous abortion thread, and he said that he's OK with women dying from unsafe abortions because the blood of the unborn babies is on their hands, not his.  He said he wouldn't save a woman dying from an abortion unless it weren't terribly inconvenient to do so.

This is why I have him farkied as "Likes to watch women die from botched abortions."


Also, Nicolae Ceausescu felt that way. And look how he ended up.
2013-08-19 06:36:17 PM  
1 vote:

A Dark Evil Omen: Good call! I just did the same.


And erase "whackadoo libertarian"?!  Not I, sir.
2013-08-19 06:34:25 PM  
1 vote:

austerity101: Repo Man: And I can easily imagine these same people, after having achieved their goal of outlawing abortion, faced with the number of women dying at the hands of underground abortionists protesting "This isn't what we wanted at all!" If you advocate a position, you have to be ready to take responsibility for its consequences, both intended and unintended.

Coincidentally, I brought up this very problem with serial_crusher in a previous abortion thread, and he said that he's OK with women dying from unsafe abortions because the blood of the unborn babies is on their hands, not his.  He said he wouldn't save a woman dying from an abortion unless it weren't terribly inconvenient to do so.

This is why I have him farkied as "Likes to watch women die from botched abortions."




See the Steinbeck quote above.
2013-08-19 06:07:01 PM  
1 vote:
I don't understand how anyone who advocates "small government" can want to make abortion illegal. You are literally forcing a person to undergo a  potentially fatal medical procedure, lose wages from their job, and provide around the clock medical care for 9 months. That is about as invasive and big government as you can get. The only way it could get bigger would be if men who get women pregnant were forced to support them financially for the entire pregnancy or face jail terms.
2013-08-19 05:56:19 PM  
1 vote:

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: serial_crusher: Your freedom of choice is great until somebody else's life is at stake. It's why the argument over whether the embryo is a person or not is relevant.

Not really. Say your bookie needed a kidney or would die. Can your bookie force you to undergo surgery and 9 months of rehab so that they can have your kidney, against your will?
Even a person has no right to do that to another person, their own impending doom notwithstanding. Hence why the debate over whether an embryo is a person or not is irrelevant.

No no, see, there's no reason for him to be a bookie in that analogy, so it doesn't work.
I have the following choices:
I pay the bookie the money I owe him
Bookie murders my family members one by one until I pay
I murder the bookie and go to prison for it

None of those are desirable, but that's the corner I've painted myself into.
Would be great if I could murder the bookie without legal repercussions, but those darn Republicans just want to punish me for gambling!


This analogy should have been aborted.
2013-08-19 05:47:55 PM  
1 vote:

Biological Ali: vygramul: If only that were the case. It's not. The anti-choice label is to generalize anti-abortion to being a philosophical opposition to choice in general. Anti-abortion makes sense. Anti-choice is intentionally moving the objection to something from the specific that is, in itself a generality. Otherwise, anti-choice could be used as a surrogate for gun control advocates for the exact same reason.

Not only is nobody doing that, that doesn't really even make sense. People aren't going to hear "anti-choice" and assume that these fundamentalists are against literally all choice, ever. Nobody's going to think "Damn, if these anti-choice people take power I won't be able to choose what kind of cereal I can buy or what kind of socks I want to wear." No, people will understand that "anti-choice" is about restricting specific people from having specific choices.

Indeed, "anti-choice" is probably more accurate than "anti-abortion", since these people aren't even consistently against abortions. At the very least, it isn't obviously less accurate than "anti-abortion".


When someone says they're pro-life, do you automatically know they're against the death penalty against war? Nope. Not ever. Nobody thinks that if these pro-life people take power, "Oops! My state won't be able to put to death mass murderers or defend the country against foreign invaders!" No, people will understand that "pro-life" is about restricting specific people from what they consider killing a person.
2013-08-19 05:43:30 PM  
1 vote:

serial_crusher: Serious Black: serial_crusher: Serious Black: What religion, if any, do you practice?

None.  It is possible for somebody to be opposed to abortion without being part of a religious group. The association with right wing Christians is a huge pet peeve of mine.  People get that an agnostic could value an adult's life, but are suddenly perplexed that one might similarly value an embryo's.

That's why I asked. What you seem to be endorsing is a complete rejection of the doctrine of double effect. The intention behind an act is irrelevant; all that matters is its outcome. That seems to be a very radical notion to me. I think most people in America believe that you're committing a morally acceptable act by killing in self-defense because the point is to preserve your own life, but if you've rejected any concern for what the intention is, then self-defense kills are still murder.

I'm not following how you reached that conclusion.  I certainly don't see things that way.
Outcome and intentions are both important.  You need to make smart choices to make sure you get the outcome you intend, but don't delude yourself into thinking that you always necessarily can achieve the desired outcome (i.e. having sex without getting pregnant).


So what about cases like, say, my niece? My sister-in-law was 37 when she became pregnant, so the doctors automatically did everything they recommend for high-risk pregnancies. They did blood tests and followed up with an amnio. They also did consistent ultrasounds to monitor development. The tests showed that not only did she have Down syndrome, but she had a hole in her heart that appeared to be inoperable for months. It took until the final ultrasound at 22 weeks for the hospital's pediatric cardiology team to say that the surgeons could correct the heart defect with one surgery; before then, the prognosis was basically death by two years and spending all of that time in the hospital on life support. If they had been in a jurisdiction with a 20-week abortion ban, I'm positive they would have aborted before that final ultrasound because the information they had at 19 weeks was that her life would be cruel and hopeless.

Anyway, so my question: should my brother and sister-in-law have been forced to give birth to a baby that every medical professional they dealt with said would be in constant, unquenchable pain for her entire life because they had sex?
2013-08-19 05:40:12 PM  
1 vote:

serial_crusher: Urbn: serial_crusher: Theaetetus: And one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. car accident, is getting treated by the EMTs. Or, similarly, one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. pregnancy, is getting an abortion. Certainly, not wanting to get pregnant doesn't exempt you from having to get an abortion if you get unlucky, no?

The big difference there is that the EMTs usually don't have to kill anybody else to help you out.  If you were looking at a broken leg with 9 months worth of rehab time, the EMTs wouldn't be justified in killing a bystander to harvest his leg and give you a transplant.  You'd have to just suck it up and do your 9 months of rehab.

So I'm sure you support universal healthcare then,

Actually, yes.

because the costs of remaining healthy and getting medical support throughout those 9 months ain't free. And I hope you don't mind picking up the tab as a taxpayer for the birth and following when the baby basically becomes a ward of the state unless adopted?

With the caveat that both unwitting parents should pay child support until such time as the child is adopted.  In cases where they're unable to, yeah the responsibility goes to the taxpayers next.


Well, then maybe you pro-lifers should lay down the aborted fetus posters and stop harassing clinics for 2 seconds and spend some cycles pushing for universal healthcare and the welfare reforms that would be necessary to even consider your draconian world view for women.
2013-08-19 05:35:04 PM  
1 vote:

serial_crusher: jst3p: serial_crusher: Theaetetus: 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?

No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.  Simply not wanting a particular result doesn't exempt you from having to deal with that result should you get unlucky.

I liken it to gambling.  You can make smart bets and you can make stupid bets.  But even if you make the smartest bet in the world, sometimes you get unlucky.  You can't just shrug your shoulders and tell the dealer you'd like your chips back.

So you are in the "punish them for having sex" group. Gotcha.

/an abortion is dealing with the result.

so, back to the gambling analogy, can I kill my bookie?


No. Murdering another person is wrong. Your analogy is too simplistic to be useful.
2013-08-19 05:25:25 PM  
1 vote:

Mambo Bananapatch: The My Little Pony Killer: vygramul: ginandbacon: vygramul: (Modern medicine doesn't help because of how it can save profoundly premature babies.)

No it can't. And again, they aren't babies.

And again, that's the point of contention, and it's not resolvable.

And yes, modern medicine can save premature babies that only 20 years ago didn't have a chance. So long as medicine pushes the frontier back, it reinforces the opinion that fetuses are babies. If you could conclusively demonstrate otherwise, there wouldn't be a debate. (Well, there's always the flat-earth and time-cube people, but you know what I mean.)

They can believe all they want about the thing growing in my body, the fact of the matter is that any actual action regarding the thing in my body stops at... wait for it... me.

They can believe all they want about it, that doesn't stop it from being mine and mine alone.

Right you are. However, that in turn doesn't stop  them from shooting your provider. If they're willing to do that, your freedom of choice has been somewhat constrained.

If one is willing to break the law in order to impose their beliefs, then the law has no value, at least from the point of view of one's victims.


My freedom of choice has not been constrained though. They've made it less safe for me to seek my abortion, but they haven't stopped me in the least.

People being willing to break laws doesn't suddenly mean that we should not have them. It means that we need to be trying them accordingly. These "pro"-lifers are terrorists, we need to treat them as such.
2013-08-19 05:20:59 PM  
1 vote:

vygramul: Pro-choice and pro-life are both only in this context. Duh. That's the point.


Considering that women will face higher risks of complications and deaths due to the ban on D&X abortions, while the ban does not reduce the number of abortions at all since there are other, less safe procedures used, the "pro-lifers" are not pro-life even within this context.
2013-08-19 05:11:10 PM  
1 vote:

serial_crusher: Serious Black: What religion, if any, do you practice?

None.  It is possible for somebody to be opposed to abortion without being part of a religious group. The association with right wing Christians is a huge pet peeve of mine.  People get that an agnostic could value an adult's life, but are suddenly perplexed that one might similarly value an embryo's.


That's why I asked. What you seem to be endorsing is a complete rejection of the doctrine of double effect. The intention behind an act is irrelevant; all that matters is its outcome. That seems to be a very radical notion to me. I think most people in America believe that you're committing a morally acceptable act by killing in self-defense because the point is to preserve your own life, but if you've rejected any concern for what the intention is, then self-defense kills are still murder.
2013-08-19 05:09:13 PM  
1 vote:

serial_crusher: That's kind of a silly argument, but I'll roll with it.  Abortion is

 not  a problem because one person is making a medical   decision on behalf of another. herself.
/Fixed that to reflect reality.
//It's your emotionally-fueled/bad theology "inspired" false premise that keeps tripping you up.
2013-08-19 04:55:38 PM  
1 vote:

Serious Black: 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.


The whole time I was writing my post, there was something on the tip of my tongue, and that was it.
2013-08-19 04:54:55 PM  
1 vote:

Zik-Zak: Serious Black: There's a (modestly) big Christian adoption movement that has really taken hold in foreign countries, where they'll go in and pressure women who have already decided against an abortion to give up their kid because the white American Christian parents will do a better job of raising them. It's very creepy.

I had a question about this some time ago - is there something about American Christianity that makes their followers...well, bellicose? If we threw in the adjective 'white', maybe it could be explained by Euro-centrism, but I feel like I miss the big picture...


It's power and privilege. When you have all the money, all the power and feel you have a right to impose your beliefs on others... well, that leads to bellicosity.
2013-08-19 04:51:20 PM  
1 vote:

Serious Black: There's a (modestly) big Christian adoption movement that has really taken hold in foreign countries, where they'll go in and pressure women who have already decided against an abortion to give up their kid because the white American Christian parents will do a better job of raising them. It's very creepy.


I had a question about this some time ago - is there something about American Christianity that makes their followers...well, bellicose? If we threw in the adjective 'white', maybe it could be explained by Euro-centrism, but I feel like I miss the big picture...
2013-08-19 04:49:06 PM  
1 vote:

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: 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?

No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.  Simply not wanting a particular result doesn't exempt you from having to deal with that result should you get unlucky.

I liken it to gambling.  You can make smart bets and you can make stupid bets.  But even if you make the smartest bet in the world, sometimes you get unlucky.  You can't just shrug your shoulders and tell the dealer you'd like your chips back.




Having the police investigating miscarriages is a stupid bet. An intensely stupid bet.
2013-08-19 04:48:08 PM  
1 vote:

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: 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?

No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.  Simply not wanting a particular result doesn't exempt you from having to deal with that result should you get unlucky.

I liken it to gambling.  You can make smart bets and you can make stupid bets.  But even if you make the smartest bet in the world, sometimes you get unlucky.  You can't just shrug your shoulders and tell the dealer you'd like your chips back.


What religion, if any, do you practice?
2013-08-19 04:41:42 PM  
1 vote:

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.
2013-08-19 04:25:01 PM  
1 vote:

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 04:24:50 PM  
1 vote:

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 04:17:05 PM  
1 vote:

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 04:15:05 PM  
1 vote:

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 04:13:42 PM  
1 vote:
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 04:08:53 PM  
1 vote:

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 04:02:54 PM  
1 vote:

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 04:01:26 PM  
1 vote:
Just following the path from their views on rape.

Can't wait until we officially designate these people as terrorists.
2013-08-19 03:59:57 PM  
1 vote:
fun fact: abortion does not kill children
2013-08-19 03:49:46 PM  
1 vote:

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.
2013-08-19 03:48:34 PM  
1 vote:

Soup4Bonnie: Santorum and his nutters even want it outlawed in the case of rape, for crying out loud.


And when Santorum has the more intellectually consistent belief system, that should be a sign that you're on the wrong side of history.
2013-08-19 03:44:27 PM  
1 vote:

Nabb1: Most of that chart has nothing to do, at least directly, with anything I was asking about. I asked a rather pointed question, I think, and that chart doesn't really answer it.


Yes, it does - specifically, the right side. More specifically, the actions of anti-abortion folks are much more consistent with them wanting to control women than with them being pro-child. As I believe they intend the results of their actions, then I must logically believe that control of women is their intention. The chart then goes into specific examples of those consistencies.
2013-08-19 03:41:18 PM  
1 vote:

serial_crusher: One of the common arguments I hear in favor of abortion


No, that's not an argument you "commonly hear". It's an argument you heard once or twice and then decided to run with because you're a dishonest little troll.
2013-08-19 03:40:30 PM  
1 vote:

Aarontology: Nabb1: 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.

Because more often than not, they also oppose things like comprehensive sex education, easy access to birth control and family planning, which would dramatically reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and therefore, the number of abortions. If they were truly "pro-life" instead of anti-sex zealots, they would be supportive of things that would do a lot to prevent the abortions they so hate.

It's not necessarily wanting to control the lives of women, but since they are the only ones biologically capable of becoming pregnant, they bear the brunt of the policies pro-lifers support. Informing people of contraception and having easier access to it shouldn't be the same sort of moral issue that abortion access is, yet they continually oppose it in favor of "abstinence only" which simply doesn't work on a societal scale.




They would also be pro homosexual. After all, who has fewer abortions than gays and lesbians?
2013-08-19 03:40:26 PM  
1 vote:

Nabb1: The Court intended Roe to begin the debate, not be the final word on it. It was supposed to give everyone a framework. It has come to be viewed by both sides of the debate as being carved in stone, in some sense, needing to be rigidly adhered to, or cast aside whole cloth, neither of which is what I believe was intended nor is a productive way to try to resolve a divisive issue.


The part that pretty much is carved in stone is that a sentient human being has a right to decide what happens to his or her body, is it not?  If you accept that a woman is sentient, abortion must be legal.
2013-08-19 03:39:43 PM  
1 vote:

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.


The "you need to have an ultrasound shoved up your vagina before you can have an abortion" law that's being passed all over the place.  What does that achieve other than more or less raping the mother?
2013-08-19 03:38:14 PM  
1 vote:
The Main tab has a great article on women's breasts, much more interesting than this one. Boobies!!!
2013-08-19 03:38:04 PM  
1 vote:

theorellior: rwhamann: 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.

You're a minority in that. Check abortion law in Latin American countries. Mandatory investigation of all miscarriages, because nothing should sully the precious fetus. The woman is merely a vessel for her holy offspring. This is what the American Taliban wants, and will get it any way they can.

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?

How many women do you know? There are plenty of women who want to control other women and keep them from being evil, evil trollops who have sinful slutty sex and enjoy their bodies like the whores they are.


popcornjunkie.files.wordpress.com
Approves
2013-08-19 03:36:39 PM  
1 vote:

Nabb1: And before anyone goes all half-cocked into some debate over religion, the entire legal basis for abortion being legal is in the concept of rights, and not even any specific, enumerated rights...


Before anyone goes all half-cocked into some debate about whether something isn't a specific, enumerated right, they should reread the ninth amendment.
2013-08-19 03:32:53 PM  
1 vote:

ristst: Not trying to troll you two, it's just that I keep noting how word "life" is used to refer to these folks when LIVING is the last thing that concerns them. They are willing to kill people in the name of *birth*, but after that? Fark you, die already.


Well, that's one of the biggest issues people tend ot have with those who label themselves pro-life.
2013-08-19 03:28:54 PM  
1 vote:

rwhamann: The majority of people I know who are anti abortion are women, are you saying they want to control women?


The fact that you don't think women can be just as authoritarian is men is just sad.
2013-08-19 03:28:46 PM  
1 vote:

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


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


Not trying to troll you two, it's just that I keep noting how word "life" is used to refer to these folks when LIVING is the last thing that concerns them.  They are willing to kill people in the name of *birth*, but after that?  Fark you, die already.
2013-08-19 03:27:10 PM  
1 vote:

rwhamann: 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?


Yes. And in general (by a small but statistically significant margin) women support abortion rights more than men do anyway.
2013-08-19 03:26:27 PM  
1 vote:

Nabb1: Apart from seeming inconsistencies in the positions of some people, I am just curious as to why opposition to abortion is constantly couched by pro-choice persons in those terms. I find it to be rather disingenuous for many folks. For example, a find the practice abhorrent, but I support more comprehensive sex education, easy access to birth control and family planning. And I oppose the death penalty. But enough about me. I am merely asking a pointed question about why the abortion debate is framed in such a way. And that's not to say pro-life folks aren't often guilty of the same sorts of thing. There are just fewer of them here to ask such a question.

Also, I do not advocate overturning Roe v. Wade and believe it is settled law. I do believe one day humanity will move past the practice in the same way other primitive cultures abandoned human sacrifice to appease their gods and ensure a good harvest, and future societies will no doubt marvel at it with morbid curiosity.


I think it has a lot to do with what you said earlier about the debate inflaming passions to such a degree that people get incredibly hyperbolic about the motivations of their opponents. Plus, it ties into a whole host of other issues such as access to health care in general, privacy rights, the role of the state in regards to protecting the vulnerable, and so on.
2013-08-19 03:26:22 PM  
1 vote:

theorellior: The only moral abortion is my abortion.


This attitude is entirely consistent with the broader notions brought up in The Authoritarians.  It's really telling that RWA will say that if one of their leaders said groups they themselves are members of are bad and need to be removed from society, they still support it, with the understanding that they aren't really members of that group.
2013-08-19 03:24:32 PM  
1 vote:

ikanreed: I'm not sure why the chart isn't a valid response to your question.


Because deflection and comma furthermore.
2013-08-19 03:23:43 PM  
1 vote:

Weaver95: brap: Congratulations, you are officially a terrorist organization.

Nonsense! Only brown people can be terrorists. The GOP said so!


Don't forget anti-capitalist, environmental and labor activists. We're terrorists until proven otherwise (which is never), no matter how peaceful/compliant/utterly obsequious we get. These guys, who actually engage in and support terrorist activity? Well, shoot, they're just concerned citizens.
2013-08-19 03:21:13 PM  
1 vote:

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 have sex and to control women.
That goal is being met in many states.


FTFY
2013-08-19 03:20:57 PM  
1 vote:

Weaver95: I thought that part was obvious. They hate you once you are born...but they'll murder others to make sure you get out of the womb.


There's no contradiction in that, these people just need something to hate, be it adult or neonate.
2013-08-19 03:19:34 PM  
1 vote:

Nabb1: Theaetetus: 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.

[www.amptoons.com image 575x1330]

Okay. Well, I asked for your own thoughts on it, and I got a chart instead.


How do you know I didn't make that chart?
2013-08-19 03:11:06 PM  
1 vote:

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.
2013-08-19 03:10:36 PM  
1 vote:

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.


Imma second that.
2013-08-19 02:53:07 PM  
1 vote:

Weaver95: Pro lifers are a very strange and paradoxical bunch. They kill in the name of preserving life and restrict the rights of others in the name of freedom. I find that a most curious way to live ones life.


Really Weav? Really?

War is Peace
Slavery is Freedom
Ignorance is Strength

This is their mantra. Served with a massive dose of 'do as I say not as I do'.
2013-08-19 02:38:51 PM  
1 vote:

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.


I don't think that's the case with most people who oppose abortion. I think they truly believe that abortion takes a human life, and those lives are worth protecting, and they aren't motivated to punish women any more than you are motivated to support abortion because you want to kill babies. The problem with the abortion "debate" is that people let their passions get so inflamed that they spend more time trying to characterize their opposition's motives as evil more than trying to come to a consensus or compromise.
2013-08-19 02:13:50 PM  
1 vote:

namatad: vygramul: There's also a gradient of opinion on abortion. There are people who are ok with the day-after pill but are appalled at the idea of third-trimester abortions unless the mother's life is at risk.

I am pretty certain that that covers everyone.
NO ONE in favor of abortion and a women's right to choose is in favor of late term abortions because the crazy biatch changed her mind.
Late is completely illegal except in case of serious risk to the mother's life.

Women who have a late term abortion because they change their minds should be beaten like seal cubs.


But how can one justify being opposed to a late-term abortion if the fetus is not a baby until birth?
2013-08-19 01:45:25 PM  
1 vote:

vygramul: 26 weeks old at birth to me is pretty farking profound.


That's third trimester. Not at all profoundly premature. You should do a little research before you start lecturing people who know more than you on what viability is.

vygramul: But I would be surprised if the mortality rate hasn't fallen.


It hasn't. We have a wall that we have hit. We improved outcomes for fetuses at and after 26 weeks because of (as I said before) ventilation and vaccinating for RSV. BTW, I worked in biotech and one of the fun bits of research I got to do was on viability.

vygramul: ginandbacon: I am also remembering now that I am pretty sure you show up in every abortion thread spouting the same lies and misinformation.

You're also making shiat up if that's what you remember.


Then I apologize. You have dodged the point I brought up about when most abortions occur, as well as why a tiny percentage occur later. It makes you look a little trolly, frankly.
2013-08-19 01:34:10 PM  
1 vote:

FloydA: So, can we finally stop the charade of calling these people "pro-life" now?


I prefer the term pro-birth.
2013-08-19 01:02:21 PM  
1 vote:

ginandbacon: vygramul: (Modern medicine doesn't help because of how it can save profoundly premature babies.)

No it can't. And again, they aren't babies.


And again, that's the point of contention, and it's not resolvable.

And yes, modern medicine can save premature babies that only 20 years ago didn't have a chance. So long as medicine pushes the frontier back, it reinforces the opinion that fetuses are babies. If you could conclusively demonstrate otherwise, there wouldn't be a debate. (Well, there's always the flat-earth and time-cube people, but you know what I mean.)
2013-08-19 12:53:08 PM  
1 vote:

vpb: doglover: Don't we have a DHS? Aren't they now an admitted terrorist group if they said they're gonna kill people? Zip ties, hoods, and black vans. Play this by the numbers.

No, they have political support.  It would be an outrage.  If they were Black Panthers or Muslims or something like that......


Pretty much. There are some pretty conservative areas in Sedgwick county(Wichita) and the Governor and State Legislature are very Republican.
2013-08-19 12:29:47 PM  
1 vote:

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


That's the fundamental disagreement, and it's unresolvable. (Modern medicine doesn't help because of how it can save profoundly premature babies.)
2013-08-19 12:27:24 PM  
1 vote:

gilgigamesh: I wonder if Kansas has a "stand your ground" law. They're all but flat out calling on prolifers to murder clinic staff.

Again.

I know if I was escorting patients at this clinic, I'd have a sidearm.


Well, not after the Kansas legislature and governor pass a law outlawing the carrying of firearms inside abortion clinics.

Sure, you'll feel safe inside.  But what about all them fundamentalists outside with guns?  They know you ain't got one.
2013-08-19 12:02:30 PM  
1 vote:

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.
2013-08-19 11:49:58 AM  
1 vote:
"Coalition for life" huh? What a sick euphemism.
 
Displayed 132 of 132 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report