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"   ( divider line
    More: Dumbass, George Tiller, tillers, gun violence, police escort, carrying a gun  
•       •       •

2933 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Aug 2013 at 3:12 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

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

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 09:08:27 PM  
3 votes:
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 03:06:03 PM  
3 votes:
Anti abortion acttivists being assholes and threatening violence? Really?

Who D&C *that* coming?
2013-08-19 06:55:19 PM  
2 votes:
Repo Man:

Sociopaths are well known for their inability to feel empathy

True, but we're pretty good with logic.
2013-08-19 06:53:06 PM  
2 votes:

serial_crusher: The AlbinoSaxon:

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.

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 05:07:01 PM  
2 votes:

Serpentile6: However Theaetetus is unlike other lawyers in one respect, she's a patent attorney. Crush, do you know what she's trying to patent?, an automated abortion machine.

cdn.ebaumsworld.comView Full Size

Unfortunately, merely automating an existing manual process is considered obvious per se and is unpatentable.
2013-08-19 04:57:42 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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

Yeah, but don't characterize that as wanting to take away all ability for a woman to choose, or taking a single specific choice off the table simply because a woman is the one who wants to choose it.  That's where the "war on women" starts getting silly.

Look serial_crusher, can I call you "Crush"? I think we might be able to enter into an alliance of sorts. I know I support everything you stand against and it seems like a bad idea but if we team up temporarily put aside our differences we can accomplish a common goal. You see Crush we have a common enemy: Theaetetus.  You see Theaetetus is a lawyer and like all lawyers she likes to argue. Even if the point is so morally bankrupt that it makes fetuses weep. However Theaetetus is unlike other lawyers in one respect, she's a patent attorney. Crush, do you know what she's trying to patent?, an automated abortion machine. No doctor to kill anymore. And that's where I have a problem. You see I might be Pro-Death, but I also believe in a human spirit. So I like good 'ol person against person violence. The way God intended. but with this machine everything will be sterile and clinical.  I can't have that, and you won't be able to temporarily shut down clinics by killing the doctor anymore.

So we need to stop Theatetus. I know you abhor violence so I'll make a compromise with you. I need you to start writing your congressman to ban the automated baby killer. They won't listen to me, I'm on too many watch lists (long story, tell you later). In addition you need to write them and have Theaetetus captured and sent to prison for helping to create something so awful. I know that seems extreme, but otherwise her project might become reality. A reality that neither of us want to live in. And if it makes it any less of a burden on top of all those other despicable things, I have it on good authority she drives a Prius.

Good luck to you sir!
2013-08-19 03:33:46 PM  
2 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.

[ 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.
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 09:58:54 PM  
1 vote:
Gosh, just look at all these magnificent trees.

huntingny.comView Full Size
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 06:20:45 PM  
1 vote:
weakstream.usView Full Size
2013-08-19 06:15:25 PM  
1 vote:
voiceable.orgView Full Size
2013-08-19 06:06:11 PM  
1 vote:
There's derptards on both sides.

i44.tinypic.comView Full Size
2013-08-19 05:49:43 PM  
1 vote:
2013-08-19 05:03:54 PM  
1 vote:

vpb: vygramul: There is no duty to retreat under Kansas law and it's a CC State.

I believe that even in duty to retreat states, that duty is obviated when the perp has a firearm.

You can't outrun a bullet.

imageshack.usView Full Size

"If you're Neo, you won't have to."
2013-08-19 04:39:18 PM  
1 vote:

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

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

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

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

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

Well, it does get them to be intellectually consistent, and also exposes the true repugnance of their agenda to the American people.
2013-08-19 04:17:05 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.

2013-08-19 04:10:19 PM  
1 vote:

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 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 01:25:52 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:45:42 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:00:06 PM  
1 vote:
<herp>  Killing one abortion doctor can save the lives of millions of unborn babies! </derp>
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.