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.

(MLive.com)   Despite the ability to "shut that whole thing down," Republicans propose women buy rape insurance   (mlive.com ) divider line
    More: Sick, Republicans, Whitmer, Michigan Legislature, Rick Snyder, Party leaders of the United States Senate  
•       •       •

4903 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Dec 2013 at 10:27 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-12-03 03:08:46 PM  

dywed88: In cases other than rape, the woman consented to have the child the moment she let a penis enter her. So her rights are now irrelevant.


Do you also do a stand up routine, cause that shiat's funny.
 
2013-12-03 03:09:49 PM  

I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.


But if a woman undergoes the intense, totally unpredictable and emotionally shattering experience of being violated violently, this bill says insureance won't cover it, unless they - you know - knew they were going to be the subject of a horrendous crime.

That's "rape insurance" any way you want to slice it, dude.
 
2013-12-03 03:11:39 PM  

physt: formerfloozy: cman: Thats one beautiful lady

Wow, that is entirely inappropriate and creepy. What the fuk does it matter what she looks like?

Let it go. Cman is on a quest to say colossally stupid things on a daily basis.  He sprinkles in a few reasonable comments now and again to throw of the mods.


I also have a sense of humor in which you failed to notice
 
2013-12-03 03:13:22 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.

But if a woman undergoes the intense, totally unpredictable and emotionally shattering experience of being violated violently, this bill says insureance won't cover it, unless they - you know - knew they were going to be the subject of a horrendous crime.

That's "rape insurance" any way you want to slice it, dude.


No.  They don't want insurance to cover abortion...period.  Not just abortion because of rape.  Rape is incidental.  The procedure is being excluded...not the conception.  It is not a rape bill.  Its an anti-abortion bill...regardless of conception...or rape.
 
2013-12-03 03:13:29 PM  

dywed88: In cases other than rape, the woman consented to have the child the moment she let a penis enter her. So her rights are now irrelevant.


I say not.  She still has those rights.  Under what basis does a clump of dividing cells have rights?  Let alone more rights than the mother?

We should be giving rights to bacteria next.  Or if that "sacred" human DNA (yet DNA that is > 99% identical is not sacred) is the dividing line, then we should consider the rights of malignant cancer stem cells.

The "pro-life" (as if most of those people should be allowed to call themselves that) movement has no argument but cheap appeals to emotion rather than appeals to logic.
 
2013-12-03 03:14:56 PM  
there you go again, dragging "fact" from TFA into the discussion.
 
2013-12-03 03:15:51 PM  

I_C_Weener: sobriquet by any other name: I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.

But if a woman undergoes the intense, totally unpredictable and emotionally shattering experience of being violated violently, this bill says insureance won't cover it, unless they - you know - knew they were going to be the subject of a horrendous crime.

That's "rape insurance" any way you want to slice it, dude.

No.  They don't want insurance to cover abortion...period.  Not just abortion because of rape.  Rape is incidental.  The procedure is being excluded...not the conception.  It is not a rape bill.  Its an anti-abortion bill...regardless of conception...or rape.


That's the whole damn problem man - a woman needs to purchase additonal coverage merely for the eventuality of being forcibly impregnated.

If they're great little christians (like i'm sure all of them are!) then the ONLY thing this bill  does is deny them coverage for rape. That's Rape Insurance.

/I said "Republicans" twice
 
2013-12-03 03:17:28 PM  

dywed88: The key to the rape exception is that the woman did not chose to have sex, so her rights personal health and security is a relevant concern. Effectively a woman then has the right to self defense.


Self defense against the fetus? The fetus didn't rape her.  The exemption is a moral contortion that allows people to sidestep their belief that it's okay to kill children of rapists, but other children are off the table.
 
2013-12-03 03:17:38 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: the ONLY thing this bill does is deny them coverage for rape


No. Coverage for abortion, regardless of cause of impregnation. Wrong on it's own. Doesn't need lies or embellishment. But party on. I see you can't be stopped.
 
2013-12-03 03:20:18 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: But if a woman undergoes the intense, totally unpredictable and emotionally shattering experience of being violated violently, this bill says insureance won't cover it, unless they - you know - knew they were going to be the subject of a horrendous crime.


Which is implied by buying the insurance in the first farking place.
 
2013-12-03 03:24:36 PM  

flucto: sobriquet by any other name: the ONLY thing this bill does is deny them coverage for rape

No. Coverage for abortion, regardless of cause of impregnation. Wrong on it's own. Doesn't need lies or embellishment. But party on. I see you can't be stopped.


which includes acts of violence, which is hardly an "embellishment" as a group mentioned in the TFA is  specifically trying to show kids born of rape are just great and not at all a biological choice every organism on the planet has made for itself since time began.

FACT: these people want women to bear children from fathers they did not pick. That's offensive and actually absolutely the point of contention this bill has, outside of the repungancy of telling a woman anything at all about it.
 
2013-12-03 03:26:47 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: FACT: these people want women to bear children from fathers they did not pick. That's offensive and actually absolutely the point of contention this bill has, outside of the repungancy of telling a woman anything at all about it.


That's not a fact. The proposed bill doesn't say that. It's still the product of misguided thinking but nothing needs to be read into it. It should fail without embellishment.
 
2013-12-03 03:28:11 PM  

dywed88: In cases other than rape, the woman consented to have the child the moment she let a penis enter her. So her rights are now irrelevant.


Consent does not work that way.  You can only consent to an activity, not an unintended consequence of the activity.  Otherwise no one would be able to sue for medical malpractice.
 
2013-12-03 03:31:07 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Self defense against the fetus? The fetus didn't rape her. The exemption is a moral contortion that allows people to sidestep their belief that it's okay to kill children of rapists, but other children are off the table.


LOL "children" of rapist.  You mean clumps of cells.  Not "children."

The irony is that I don't find being a human to be so cheap.  That is why I cannot consider a mere chemical reaction to be a full fledged human worthy of rights or... anything yet.

Like I said above - you people have nothing but cheap emotional appeals.
 
2013-12-03 03:31:16 PM  

flucto: sobriquet by any other name: FACT: these people want women to bear children from fathers they did not pick. That's offensive and actually absolutely the point of contention this bill has, outside of the repungancy of telling a woman anything at all about it.

That's not a fact. The proposed bill doesn't say that. It's still the product of misguided thinking but nothing needs to be read into it. It should fail without embellishment.


i see you skipped quoting the paragraph i wrote about how signatures and support for this bill come from a group with a specific motivation to obligate violently impgregnated women to carry bad genetic material to term.

Context matters. fark the republican party!
 
2013-12-03 03:33:20 PM  

Fast Moon: dywed88: In cases other than rape, the woman consented to have the child the moment she let a penis enter her. So her rights are now irrelevant.

Consent does not work that way.  You can only consent to an activity, not an unintended consequence of the activity.  Otherwise no one would be able to sue for medical malpractice.


You DO know getting rid of that is part of the long term Republican agenda, don't you?  AKA "taking on trial lawyers" etc.  So your example will not sway them.
 
2013-12-03 03:34:55 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: dywed88: The key to the rape exception is that the woman did not chose to have sex, so her rights personal health and security is a relevant concern. Effectively a woman then has the right to self defense.

Self defense against the fetus? The fetus didn't rape her.  The exemption is a moral contortion that allows people to sidestep their belief that it's okay to kill children of rapists, but other children are off the table.


It's not that the fetus is being punished for raping her. She can't go back and kill the actual rapist after the fact and call it self defense either.
She's defending herself against the fetus's unsolicited use of her body for its life support functions.
If you choose to have sex, you're soliciting for a baby.
The fetus is as much a victim in that situation as the mother is, but the rapist is the one who should be charged with both rape and murder.
 
2013-12-03 03:41:42 PM  
even

serial_crusher: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: dywed88: The key to the rape exception is that the woman did not chose to have sex, so her rights personal health and security is a relevant concern. Effectively a woman then has the right to self defense.

Self defense against the fetus? The fetus didn't rape her.  The exemption is a moral contortion that allows people to sidestep their belief that it's okay to kill children of rapists, but other children are off the table.

It's not that the fetus is being punished for raping her. She can't go back and kill the actual rapist after the fact and call it self defense either.
She's defending herself against the fetus's unsolicited use of her body for its life support functions.
If you choose to have sex, you're soliciting for a baby.
The fetus is as much a victim in that situation as the mother is, but the rapist is the one who should be charged with both rape and murder.


even more, why not also charge that guy with murder of the baby the woman  would have had if her resources were not drained raising the first? If we are going to follow that logic, that is.
 
2013-12-03 03:42:13 PM  

physt: formerfloozy: cman: Thats one beautiful lady

Wow, that is entirely inappropriate and creepy. What the fuk does it matter what she looks like?

Let it go. Cman is on a quest to say colossally stupid things on a daily basis.  He sprinkles in a few reasonable comments now and again to throw of the mods.


Being a moran isn't deletable.  Calling a moran a moran is deletable.
 
2013-12-03 03:42:59 PM  

tarthrin: It's a little simplified, but basically the idea is that if you get enough signatures, your group can propose legislation to the state house, and they have to consider it and I think take a vote on it. (Which I think is fine, except for the Governor bypass)
In this instance the repubs tried to pass a similar bill, and it got vetoed.
So since this petition is "coincidentally" similar to the one that got vetoed....

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28xrjn2lj2t21orj55b1g1ky45%29%29/ mi leg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-Article-II-9

"No law initiated or adopted by the people shall be subject to the veto power of the governor, and no law adopted by the people at the polls under the initiative provisions of this section shall be amended or repealed, except by a vote of the electors unless otherwise provided in the initiative measure or by three-fourths of the members elected to and serving in each house of the legislature. "


It's a special kind of hypocritical dumbity for the party so fetishistically focused on LAWS to:
1) attempt to pass a law the "conventional" way
b) fail to get the Legislature to adopt the bill
iii) make an end-run around that same process to get the same bill passed via unconventional means
FOUR LIGHTS) while still (presumably) calling it "the will of the people".

It's pretty obviously the will of only some (a minority of) people, and the Legislature already decided they didn't want any part of it. Wait 'til next session, yambags.

// if it hadn't already failed a vote, I'd be more OK with it - it may be a repugnant bill, but they'd at least be going through "legal" channels to get it passed
 
2013-12-03 03:47:52 PM  

bk3k: Like I said above - you people have nothing but cheap emotional appeals.


You're misunderstanding just about everything I'm saying. I'm not even "you people."
 
2013-12-03 04:21:56 PM  
I love that smearing the GOP with rape is so easy. Way to set yourselves up, conservatives.
 
2013-12-03 04:22:35 PM  
FTFA:The citizen-initiated legislation, headed to the Legislature after the Board of State Canvassers certified an estimated 299,941 signatures collected by the nonprofit, would prohibit insurers from including abortion coverage as a standard feature in health plans they sell in Michigan.

So according to Whitmer Abortion Insurance = Rape Insurance.

Reduce

Therfore according to Whitmer Abortion=Rape.

I thought it was Republicans who supported rape.
 
2013-12-03 04:26:34 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: I_C_Weener: sobriquet by any other name: I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.

But if a woman undergoes the intense, totally unpredictable and emotionally shattering experience of being violated violently, this bill says insureance won't cover it, unless they - you know - knew they were going to be the subject of a horrendous crime.

That's "rape insurance" any way you want to slice it, dude.

No.  They don't want insurance to cover abortion...period.  Not just abortion because of rape.  Rape is incidental.  The procedure is being excluded...not the conception.  It is not a rape bill.  Its an anti-abortion bill...regardless of conception...or rape.

That's the whole damn problem man - a woman needs to purchase additonal coverage merely for the eventuality of being forcibly impregnated.

If they're great little christians (like i'm sure all of them are!) then the ONLY thing this bill  does is deny them coverage for rape. That's Rape Insurance.

/I said "Republicans" twice


So everyone arguing this is a rape bill are simultaneously saying that abortion only occurs because of rape?  No other reasons for abortion?  NONE?  REALLY?


i586.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-03 04:29:09 PM  

flucto: sobriquet by any other name: the ONLY thing this bill does is deny them coverage for rape

No. Coverage for abortion, regardless of cause of impregnation. Wrong on it's own. Doesn't need lies or embellishment. But party on. I see you can't be stopped.


You get me.  You really really get me.

Calling it a rape bill is hysteria.  Calling it anti-abortion, pro-life, etc... is accurate and not arguing from emotion based on the worst case scenario alone.
 
2013-12-03 04:29:40 PM  

lockers: I love that smearing the GOP with rape is so easy. Way to set yourselves up, conservatives.


You could say they were asking for it. Should have been more careful with the clothing they choose to wear.
 
2013-12-03 04:32:53 PM  

bk3k: dywed88: In cases other than rape, the woman consented to have the child the moment she let a penis enter her. So her rights are now irrelevant.

I say not.  She still has those rights.  Under what basis does a clump of dividing cells have rights?  Let alone more rights than the mother?

We should be giving rights to bacteria next.  Or if that "sacred" human DNA (yet DNA that is > 99% identical is not sacred) is the dividing line, then we should consider the rights of malignant cancer stem cells.

The "pro-life" (as if most of those people should be allowed to call themselves that) movement has no argument but cheap appeals to emotion rather than appeals to logic.


A baby is just a lump of dividing cells unless you put forth some other distinction.  However that is not a road you want to go down.  If you do you are walking right into the argument the fundies want to have.  They will show you pictures of tiny fetuses and point out when the various parts start to develop and claim 'it's a child and you are murdering it'.

The one question the pro-choice crowed has to avoid is when does a fetus become a person.  If you sink to the then the fundies will claim the high moral ground.
 
2013-12-03 04:37:38 PM  

pdee: A baby is just a lump of dividing cells unless you put forth some other distinction.  However that is not a road you want to go down.  If you do you are walking right into the argument the fundies want to have.  They will show you pictures of tiny fetuses and point out when the various parts start to develop and claim 'it's a child and you are murdering it'.The one question the pro-choice crowed has to avoid is when does a fetus become a person.  If you sink to the then the fundies will claim the high moral ground.


Actually, that's a surprisingly easy conversation. The line of distinction is breath. Even the bible says so.

/which puts their limit for abortion at 40+ weeks. That becomes a very fun conversation in a hurry.
 
2013-12-03 04:38:58 PM  

I_C_Weener: Calling it a rape bill is hysteria.


Which is the standard operating procedure to make sure emotions are high, thinkin' is prevented, and partisan brand loyalty reigns supreme. Everyone who resorts to emotional hyperbole is part of the problem. Unless of course they're Democrats.
 
2013-12-03 04:41:41 PM  

I_C_Weener: sobriquet by any other name: I_C_Weener: sobriquet by any other name: I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.

But if a woman undergoes the intense, totally unpredictable and emotionally shattering experience of being violated violently, this bill says insureance won't cover it, unless they - you know - knew they were going to be the subject of a horrendous crime.

That's "rape insurance" any way you want to slice it, dude.

No.  They don't want insurance to cover abortion...period.  Not just abortion because of rape.  Rape is incidental.  The procedure is being excluded...not the conception.  It is not a rape bill.  Its an anti-abortion bill...regardless of conception...or rape.

That's the whole damn problem man - a woman needs to purchase additonal coverage merely for the eventuality of being forcibly impregnated.

If they're great little christians (like i'm sure all of them are!) then the ONLY thing this bill  does is deny them coverage for rape. That's Rape Insurance.

/I said "Republicans" twice

So everyone arguing this is a rape bill are simultaneously saying that abortion only occurs because of rape?  No other reasons for abortion?  NONE?  REALLY?


[i586.photobucket.com image 300x167]


Until there is some exception - and that's still offensive - YES, THIS BILL EXPLICTLY STATES THAT VIOLENT IMPREGNATION NOT BE COVERED.

that's not hysteria, it's fact.
 
2013-12-03 04:43:03 PM  
(and before you say it, deciding no abortion be covered is  very explicit!)
 
2013-12-03 04:46:27 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: I_C_Weener: sobriquet by any other name: I_C_Weener: sobriquet by any other name: I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.

But if a woman undergoes the intense, totally unpredictable and emotionally shattering experience of being violated violently, this bill says insureance won't cover it, unless they - you know - knew they were going to be the subject of a horrendous crime.

That's "rape insurance" any way you want to slice it, dude.

No.  They don't want insurance to cover abortion...period.  Not just abortion because of rape.  Rape is incidental.  The procedure is being excluded...not the conception.  It is not a rape bill.  Its an anti-abortion bill...regardless of conception...or rape.

That's the whole damn problem man - a woman needs to purchase additonal coverage merely for the eventuality of being forcibly impregnated.

If they're great little christians (like i'm sure all of them are!) then the ONLY thing this bill  does is deny them coverage for rape. That's Rape Insurance.

/I said "Republicans" twice

So everyone arguing this is a rape bill are simultaneously saying that abortion only occurs because of rape?  No other reasons for abortion?  NONE?  REALLY?


[i586.photobucket.com image 300x167]

Until there is some exception - and that's still offensive - YES, THIS BILL EXPLICTLY STATES THAT VIOLENT IMPREGNATION NOT BE COVERED.

that's not hysteria, it's fact.


Based on the article, I'm seeing only that they don't want insurance to automatically cover abortion (not rapey abortion, just abortion) and if they employer wants it included, that the employer tell all its employees that it insures baby killers.

If you have some other source saying this is all about rape, then I'll gladly listen.  As I see it, and as the article points out, the only one crying rape or rape exclusion is a Democrat politician....and those in here, and the headline.  Got something more than repeating Fark headlines as fact?
 
2013-12-03 04:46:50 PM  

Peki: pdee: A baby is just a lump of dividing cells unless you put forth some other distinction.  However that is not a road you want to go down.  If you do you are walking right into the argument the fundies want to have.  They will show you pictures of tiny fetuses and point out when the various parts start to develop and claim 'it's a child and you are murdering it'.The one question the pro-choice crowed has to avoid is when does a fetus become a person.  If you sink to the then the fundies will claim the high moral ground.

Actually, that's a surprisingly easy conversation. The line of distinction is breath. Even the bible says so.

/which puts their limit for abortion at 40+ weeks. That becomes a very fun conversation in a hurry.


If that where you draw the line i'm ok with that.  But there is no way I'm going to believe that having a conversation with a religious fundie over abortion is going to be 'very fun'.
 
2013-12-03 04:48:34 PM  

flucto: I_C_Weener: Calling it a rape bill is hysteria.

Which is the standard operating procedure to make sure emotions are high, thinkin' is prevented, and partisan brand loyalty reigns supreme. Everyone who resorts to emotional hyperbole is part of the problem. Unless of course they're Democrats.


Also called FNORDS!

/oh I see them
 
2013-12-03 04:50:15 PM  

pdee: Peki: pdee: A baby is just a lump of dividing cells unless you put forth some other distinction.  However that is not a road you want to go down.  If you do you are walking right into the argument the fundies want to have.  They will show you pictures of tiny fetuses and point out when the various parts start to develop and claim 'it's a child and you are murdering it'.The one question the pro-choice crowed has to avoid is when does a fetus become a person.  If you sink to the then the fundies will claim the high moral ground.

Actually, that's a surprisingly easy conversation. The line of distinction is breath. Even the bible says so.

/which puts their limit for abortion at 40+ weeks. That becomes a very fun conversation in a hurry.

If that where you draw the line i'm ok with that.  But there is no way I'm going to believe that having a conversation with a religious fundie over abortion is going to be 'very fun'.


God was pro-choice up until Abraham had his toddler on the altar.  I'm not sure religion is a good basis for abortion law.
 
2013-12-03 04:51:41 PM  

pdee: But there is no way I'm going to believe that having a conversation with a religious fundie over abortion is going to be 'very fun'.


I have a unique idea of fun. I took a Bible as Lit class in college specifically to get ammunition for the standard arguments.
 
2013-12-03 04:54:03 PM  

skullkrusher: thamike: skullkrusher: Sure. Stupid law proposed by GOP is stupid. I guess we wouldn't have much of a thread if some people weren't trying to pretend the response wasn't bullshiat. Drew loves him some cheer leading ninnies

We wouldn't have much of a thread if some ninnies didn't spend their time trying to distract from the main idea by nitpicking syntax, either.

Detracting from the main idea by criticizing it 3 times now? Sorry if juggling 2 balls is beyond ye


I'm sorry that juggling balls is your bag.
 
2013-12-03 05:01:01 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: evenserial_crusher: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: dywed88: The key to the rape exception is that the woman did not chose to have sex, so her rights personal health and security is a relevant concern. Effectively a woman then has the right to self defense.

Self defense against the fetus? The fetus didn't rape her.  The exemption is a moral contortion that allows people to sidestep their belief that it's okay to kill children of rapists, but other children are off the table.

It's not that the fetus is being punished for raping her. She can't go back and kill the actual rapist after the fact and call it self defense either.
She's defending herself against the fetus's unsolicited use of her body for its life support functions.
If you choose to have sex, you're soliciting for a baby.
The fetus is as much a victim in that situation as the mother is, but the rapist is the one who should be charged with both rape and murder.

even more, why not also charge that guy with murder of the baby the woman  would have had if her resources were not drained raising the first? If we are going to follow that logic, that is.


Huh?
 
2013-12-03 05:04:31 PM  

I_C_Weener: pdee: Peki: pdee: A baby is just a lump of dividing cells unless you put forth some other distinction.  However that is not a road you want to go down.  If you do you are walking right into the argument the fundies want to have.  They will show you pictures of tiny fetuses and point out when the various parts start to develop and claim 'it's a child and you are murdering it'.The one question the pro-choice crowed has to avoid is when does a fetus become a person.  If you sink to the then the fundies will claim the high moral ground.

Actually, that's a surprisingly easy conversation. The line of distinction is breath. Even the bible says so.

/which puts their limit for abortion at 40+ weeks. That becomes a very fun conversation in a hurry.

If that where you draw the line i'm ok with that.  But there is no way I'm going to believe that having a conversation with a religious fundie over abortion is going to be 'very fun'.

God was pro-choice up until Abraham had his toddler on the altar.  I'm not sure religion is a good basis for abortion law.


Still was afterwards. The Holiness Code was the time of Moses, which provides the basis of the argument by including different penalties for killing a fetus but not the mother, versus killing a child, versus killing a pregnant woman, and Proverbs (and Genesis, but that's pre-Abraham) specifically mentions to be born = to breathe = to live. Without any of that, you had an idea of a person, but not a soul.

/no, religions are NOT good basis (huh, a plural I have no idea how to form) for abortion law, but since so many people subscribe to Christian morality, I'd rather use their own book against them. It's a wedge to open a crack into the iron-clad shells of a mind they have. Most of the time it doesn't work, but it seems to be more successful than other tactics I've tried.
 
2013-12-03 05:08:55 PM  

I_C_Weener: So everyone arguing this is a rape bill are simultaneously saying that abortion only occurs because of rape? No other reasons for abortion? NONE? REALLY?


The Republicans were given the chance to carve out an exception for rape victims.  Even the Republican governor of Michigan thought this went too far.  They specifically chose to leave rape victims not covered.  It was a choice, not an oversight.

That's why the name fits.
 
2013-12-03 05:10:40 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: evenserial_crusher: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: dywed88: The key to the rape exception is that the woman did not chose to have sex, so her rights personal health and security is a relevant concern. Effectively a woman then has the right to self defense.

Self defense against the fetus? The fetus didn't rape her.  The exemption is a moral contortion that allows people to sidestep their belief that it's okay to kill children of rapists, but other children are off the table.

It's not that the fetus is being punished for raping her. She can't go back and kill the actual rapist after the fact and call it self defense either.
She's defending herself against the fetus's unsolicited use of her body for its life support functions.
If you choose to have sex, you're soliciting for a baby.
The fetus is as much a victim in that situation as the mother is, but the rapist is the one who should be charged with both rape and murder.

even more, why not also charge that guy with murder of the baby the woman  would have had if her resources were not drained raising the first? If we are going to follow that logic, that is.


Side note, not a direct response to what I'm quoting:
Whoever suggested that an abortion would not be done in self-defense against a fetus has never heard of eclampsia.

Pregnancies can be very dangerous. See the lawsuit that a woman is now pursuing against the Catholic bishops organization in the US because they did not inform her than an abortion would be the safest way to end a pregnancy that was already in the process of miscarrying. By doing so, they exposed her to the possibility of severe infection and other issues. I am SO glad to see this lawsuit, because we really need to have this conversation. Quantity of life is not sacred! Quality of life is.
 
2013-12-03 05:14:50 PM  

flucto: I_C_Weener: Calling it a rape bill is hysteria.

Which is the standard operating procedure to make sure emotions are high, thinkin' is prevented, and partisan brand loyalty reigns supreme. Everyone who resorts to emotional hyperbole is part of the problem. Unless of course they're Democrats.


playing the victim while complaining about emotional rhetoric and complaining about partisanship while taking potshots at democrats, I like your shamelessness, breh.
 
2013-12-03 05:15:52 PM  

physt: formerfloozy: cman: Thats one beautiful lady

Wow, that is entirely inappropriate and creepy. What the fuk does it matter what she looks like?

Let it go. Cman is on a quest to say colossally stupid things on a daily basis.  He sprinkles in a few reasonable comments now and again to throw of the mods.


Hey, be fair. He used to be far derpier.
 
2013-12-03 05:55:29 PM  
Well the other side wants me to buy maternity care, so at least this makes some sort of logic.
 
2013-12-03 06:20:11 PM  

formerfloozy: sabreWulf07: formerfloozy: My doc even wanted a meeting with my ex husband to ensure he was down with me getting a tubal.

WTF?

Sorry, I sould have said "my now ex-husband"


Maybe it's a CA thing, but when we looked into getting snipped as newlyweds, Kaiser Permanente explicitly said, "You do not need your spouse's permission to get sterilized." They made us sign a form that said, "I acknowledge that this is a permanent procedure and that I'll be sterile afterwards." but they didn't push into waiting or question us over and over again if we were sure about this.
 
2013-12-03 07:43:22 PM  

Mercutio74: mrshowrules: Not a dumb idea. You could probably sell thousands of policies. Here is an article about the real cost to immigrate to Canada. Just base the payout on that.

Just please, please... if you immigrate to Canada adjust your political spectrum.  Years of living in the US will probably have caused you to think that the Dems are left wing.  Our conservative party is pretty much what a "moderate" Democrat would be, except even they won't overtly attack socialized medicine.


img.fark.net
 
2013-12-03 07:46:58 PM  

I_C_Weener: So everyone arguing this is a rape bill are simultaneously saying that abortion only occurs because of rape?  No other reasons for abortion?  NONE?  REALLY?


How about those of us who are arguing that somebody else's medical decisions are nunya bidness?

Because it's not your body.
Because it's not your uterus.
Because it's not your life, health and wellbeing on the line.
Because God says that life begins at first breath, that causing a miscarriage is not murder, and created a trial by ordeal for adultery.
(Which, until it was banned by the Sanhedrin, included making the woman undergoing the trial drink an abortifacient (wormwood), according to contemporary documents.)
Because involuntary servitude is explicitly unconstitutional.
Because you don't get to impose the practices and beliefs of your religion on other people.
 
2013-12-03 07:48:18 PM  

Dr Dreidel: It's a special kind of hypocritical dumbity for the party so fetishistically focused on LAWS to:
1) attempt to pass a law the "conventional" way
b) fail to get the Legislature to adopt the bill
iii) make an end-run around that same process to get the same bill passed via unconventional means
FOUR LIGHTS) while still (presumably) calling it "the will of the people".


According to Republicans, those who disagree with the party platform do not count as "the people".
 
2013-12-03 08:06:48 PM  

pdee: The one question the pro-choice crowed has to avoid is when does a fetus become a person.  If you sink to the then the fundies will claim the high moral ground.


First breath, see:
וייצר יהוה אלהים את האדם עפר מן האדמה ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים ויהי האדם לנפש חיה׃

Because God says so.
Any other questions?
 
2013-12-04 05:43:21 AM  
I see my responses have basically been taken care of for me and there is not much I need to say then(but I am going to blab because I can).  I will just say yes I am fine with abortion up until birth.  I know many are not, but I am.

I am not like so many people who are pro-choice yet abortion apologists.  Abortion does not require an apology.  This whole "I also hate abortion but I think women should have the right anyhow" is a proven loosing argument in the court of public opinion.  Stop conceding that there is anything wrong with abortion, because there is not.  DO correct people's mischaracterizations of what is occurring scientifically and medically during pregnancy and abortion.  Stop being afraid to offend these people and stop giving them ground.  Laugh at their emotional appeals and face them straight on with facts.  Do not let them refer to anything as a baby nor a child that is neither.

One other funny thing though that the right wingers don't process - abortions inevitably save TONS of taxpayer dollars.  Simple statistics (on who generally gets abortions) tells us that nearly all those no longer aborted zygotes/fetuses/etc (who do eventually become babies and later children) will come out of low or no income mothers so you have both more welfare moms and more kids in state custody until they get adopted (and most won't).

Statistics also tell us that most of these unadopted children end up spending the majority of their adult lives in prison (aka still being housed and fed by the taxpayer).  It is almost as if the state does not make a good loving and nurturing parent.  To add insult to injury these people are generally the same people that stand in the way of those kids getting adopted (thus having a real chance) by loving gay parents.

So in multiple compound ways, these "pro-life" assholes are basically asking to get taxed more but they will complain about it all the way to the bank.  They do not seem to think that THEIR OWN choices (aka the legislation they keep pushing) should have consequences.

And they want to talk about those "sluts" needing to "be responsible for their mistakes."  Well there is nothing wrong with having sex but yes failing to use birth control when you are not ready for a baby is a tad irresponsible yet completely understandable.  Still having a child you cannot afford (meaning you will have it only to shift the cost onto others) just because you made a tiny mistake earlier... is NOT "being responsible."  When you make a mess... the responsible thing to do is to clean up the mess.  So you screwed up and got pregnant... take care of the problem instead of asking the rest of us to pay for your mistakes for the next 18 years.

So get that abortion and go to college classes instead of Lamaze classes.  Do not write off your own future so that you can become a mother before you are ready.  Make something of yourself first and when you do eventually have children... they will have a life worth living and a real future to boot.  Now THAT is accepting responsibility!

And no abortions are not treated quite like condoms either.  Very few people get repeat abortions.  I cannot speak for everywhere, but around here they cost about $500 (I have personally brought friends since they cannot drive themselves home after) and the girls are gonna feel it for a while after depending on how far along she was.  I think most would find condoms/birth control pills to be much more attractive options after having got an abortion just once.
 
Displayed 50 of 374 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report