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.

(Wikipedia)   Happy Birthday, Roe v. Wade. Okay, let me rephrase that. Today marks the 41st anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision   (en.wikipedia.org) divider line 452
    More: Interesting, Happy Birthday, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, adjudications, strict scrutiny, maternal health, Fourteenth Amendment, abortion law  
•       •       •

1224 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jan 2014 at 5:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-22 06:58:34 PM  

the_vegetarian_cannibal: If abortion is only about killing a human being and not about controlling women's bodies, why do they oppose increased access to contraceptives, which is the easiest and cheapest way to prevent abortions?


Because it's never been about protecting life, it's always been about punishing women for having sex.
 
2014-01-22 06:59:42 PM  

the_vegetarian_cannibal: That Guy Jeff: FlashHarry: here's to 4+ decades of empowering progressive women and enraging conservative men.

I'm strictly "pro-choice". But I also despise this inability of people to correctly frame their opponent's arguments and their persistence in misrepresenting their "enemies" motives for their own sides gain.

The conservative dislike of abortion has absolutely nothing to do with women. They believe that abortion is killing a human being. They believe it is morally wrong to kill another human being, at least, one that hasn't themselves killed someone. And that's it. That's the sum and the total of their argument. All this "war against women" garbage might make for good fundraising and mobilization and help to get people riled up, but it also makes YOU every bit as sleazy as any other sleazy manipulative liar engaged in the fight. It's every bit as underhanded and disingenuous to say "liberals want to murder babies" as it is to say "conservatives want to control women". That simply isn't either sides motivation.

Here, in case this needs explicit spelling out: One side believes abortion is killing a human being. The other side believes prohibiting abortion unjustly limits the ability of women to control their own bodies. That's it. That's the entirety of the "debate". We would be a lot farther along in a lot more issues if people would stop making up the other side's motivations to capitalize on divisiveness.

Let me ask you a question then.

If abortion is only about killing a human being and not about controlling women's bodies, why do they oppose increased access to contraceptives, which is the easiest and cheapest way to prevent abortions?


Because an entirely separate belief says "sex marriage is bad and you should be doing everything you can to try and keep people from doing it, not making it more consequence free". Yeah, it's a stupid farking belief, but it is theirs. That's one issue they are just going to have to give up. They are a lot closer to coming around on that issue than abortion, and not inflaming the entire pot by making up unflattering positions for them might help make a more civil environment where they come around faster.

Oh wait... by "oppose increased access to contraceptives" do you mean "don't want to be forced to pay for other people's contraceptives"? Because that would be another great example of twisting their position to suit your ends. Hell, I'm pro-choice and I don't want to pay for your stuff either.
 
2014-01-22 06:59:58 PM  

mithras_angel: Laws against abortion won't stop that, but, due to the ignorance of biology of (largely) male, Republican elected officials, it may be criminalized in certain circumstances.


Ignorance of biology?  You should crack open a couple of textbooks and tell me what the life cycle of homo sapiens is again.
 
2014-01-22 07:00:16 PM  
Good headline.
 
2014-01-22 07:00:31 PM  

That Guy Jeff: jso2897: That Guy Jeff: FlashHarry: here's to 4+ decades of empowering progressive women and enraging conservative men.

I'm strictly "pro-choice". But I also despise this inability of people to correctly frame their opponent's arguments and their persistence in misrepresenting their "enemies" motives for their own sides gain.

The conservative dislike of abortion has absolutely nothing to do with women. They believe that abortion is killing a human being. They believe it is morally wrong to kill another human being, at least, one that hasn't themselves killed someone. And that's it. That's the sum and the total of their argument. All this "war against women" garbage might make for good fundraising and mobilization and help to get people riled up, but it also makes YOU every bit as sleazy as any other sleazy manipulative liar engaged in the fight. It's every bit as underhanded and disingenuous to say "liberals want to murder babies" as it is to say "conservatives want to control women". That simply isn't either sides motivation.

Here, in case this needs explicit spelling out: One side believes abortion is killing a human being. The other side believes prohibiting abortion unjustly limits the ability of women to control their own bodies. That's it. That's the entirety of the "debate". We would be a lot farther along in a lot more issues if people would stop making up the other side's motivations to capitalize on divisiveness.

Why even care what people's motivations are? I don't care. You want to claim posession my body because you think killing a fetus is murder? I decline to discuss it with you. Your motivations are irrelevant, and I will treat you the same as I would a rapist in an alley who attempts to take posession of my body.*
I agree with you - the "motivation" talk is bullshiat.

* Assuming, for the sake of argument, that I am a woman.

Because you live in a democracy? Again, you're putting words in their mouth. They don't give a flying fark about your body ...


I'm not arguing with you - I am simply pointing out that, were I a woman, I would not even take your opinion into consideration, since it wouldn't concern me in that circumstance any more than it does now.
 
2014-01-22 07:00:36 PM  

Ishkur: the_vegetarian_cannibal: If abortion is only about killing a human being and not about controlling women's bodies, why do they oppose increased access to contraceptives, which is the easiest and cheapest way to prevent abortions?

Because it's never been about protecting life, it's always been about punishing women for having sex.


Hey look, another ridiculous strawman.
 
2014-01-22 07:01:56 PM  

Callous: Oh and this is another reason. Anyone that disagrees with me on this must disagree with me on all things. You'll get a lot farther into the conversation if you stop bludgeoning people with your preconceived notions about them.


No offense, but if you hold the position of opposing abortion while supporting birth control, then you are in the very small minority of the pro-life crowd. You're criticizing the pro-choice position while conveniently leaving out half of the issue. If that really is your position, then the people you should be having the argument with is not pro-choicers but the other more hardline pro-lifers who refuse to compromise on either side of the issue.

You realize that if that was the position they took (opposing abortion due to the sanctity of life but still supporting the mother and finding practical ways to avoid its necessity), the entire "war on women" narrative would lose its teeth.
 
2014-01-22 07:03:11 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Wadded Beef: umad: Wadded Beef: umad: Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.

Men shouldn't have a choice in whether or not the woman aborts. They should have the choice to abort their parental rights and responsibilities though.

If it's the man's kid, it's his kid. They now have parental responsibilities whether they want them or not.

If women can terminate their responsibilites then men should be able to as well. If men can't, then neither should women. I don't care either way, as long as it is equal.

But it's not equal. It's only the women who are forced to carry the meatsacks and should of course have the choice whether to keep it.

As for men, if you've impregnated somebody, guess what: you've already made the choice available to you and that is you unzipped your pants. And you've made the de facto acceptance to the consequences. If she chooses to keep it you're on the hook.

Party responsibly.

That's an unequal sharing of the responsibility. They both unzipped their pants as you put it. And yet she gets a followup opportunity to discard the responsibility, while he does not because as you say, he made his choice(the only one he gets)same as she did, but that's it for him.


To simplify: since only a woman can carry a fetus it's her choice whether she wants to keep it. Agree?

Is a man not on the hook for the child if he chooses to have sex with her and it leads to pregnancy?

Would not the 'equal' way (as proposed above) give men free reign to spread their seed anywhere/everywhere and not have to assume any responsibility? That's his "equal" viewpoint as I read it.
 
2014-01-22 07:03:48 PM  

Callous: Ishkur: the_vegetarian_cannibal: If abortion is only about killing a human being and not about controlling women's bodies, why do they oppose increased access to contraceptives, which is the easiest and cheapest way to prevent abortions?

Because it's never been about protecting life, it's always been about punishing women for having sex.

Hey look, another ridiculous strawman.


It's more "motivation" talk. Motivations don't matter.
 
2014-01-22 07:05:05 PM  

Callous: Ishkur: the_vegetarian_cannibal: If abortion is only about killing a human being and not about controlling women's bodies, why do they oppose increased access to contraceptives, which is the easiest and cheapest way to prevent abortions?

Because it's never been about protecting life, it's always been about punishing women for having sex.

Hey look, another ridiculous strawman.


It's not a strawman when it's the official platform of one of the two major political parties in this country.
 
2014-01-22 07:08:08 PM  

jso2897: That's an unequal sharing of the responsibility. They both unzipped their pants as you put it. And yet she gets a followup opportunity to discard the responsibility, while he does not because as you say, he made his choice(the only one he gets)same as she did, but that's it for him.

To take it out of the abstract into the practical. let us say, for the sake of argument, that you are ina relationship with a woman who says she wants to make babby with you, and you do, and then she chnages her mind. Assuming you have the option to force her to carry it to term and become a mother against her will - is that a wise decision? Seems like a man with any sense would consider himself well out of a bad place.


That's not the situation I am referring to. It was the OP who posited that the male contributor to a pregnancy only has one opportunity to discard the potential parental responsibility, whereas the female contributor has two, e.g. unintended pregnancy results from two people copulating, if she decides to keep it, he is on the hook and cannot remove himself from the position of responsibility without the mother's consent. If after they concieve and she doesn't want to keep it, she has an additional option to remove herself from the position of responsibility without his approval. I am not arguing that she needs his approval to abort, just that she has more rights of self-determination than he does.
 
2014-01-22 07:08:19 PM  

Molavian: mithras_angel: Laws against abortion won't stop that, but, due to the ignorance of biology of (largely) male, Republican elected officials, it may be criminalized in certain circumstances.

Ignorance of biology?  You should crack open a couple of textbooks and tell me what the life cycle of homo sapiens is again.


Everything I said there is from an NIH government site on miscarriages.


Well, except the bit about Republican politicians being generally ignorant about science.  But that's fairly common knowledge, so I assume it will be accepted.
 
2014-01-22 07:11:05 PM  

That Guy Jeff: The conservative dislike of abortion has absolutely nothing to do with women. They believe that abortion is killing a human being. They believe it is morally wrong to kill another human being,


Horseshiat. They have no problems with war adventuring, poverty, starvation, famine, and doing whatever it takes to make socially undesirable people suffer. They certainly don't care about harming others, why would they care about killing others.

Fetuses must be protected at all costs! But 100,000 Iraqi civillians -- fark 'em. They should have gotten out of the way of our missiles faster.
 
2014-01-22 07:11:40 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: jso2897: That's an unequal sharing of the responsibility. They both unzipped their pants as you put it. And yet she gets a followup opportunity to discard the responsibility, while he does not because as you say, he made his choice(the only one he gets)same as she did, but that's it for him.

To take it out of the abstract into the practical. let us say, for the sake of argument, that you are ina relationship with a woman who says she wants to make babby with you, and you do, and then she chnages her mind. Assuming you have the option to force her to carry it to term and become a mother against her will - is that a wise decision? Seems like a man with any sense would consider himself well out of a bad place.

That's not the situation I am referring to. It was the OP who posited that the male contributor to a pregnancy only has one opportunity to discard the potential parental responsibility, whereas the female contributor has two, e.g. unintended pregnancy results from two people copulating, if she decides to keep it, he is on the hook and cannot remove himself from the position of responsibility without the mother's consent. If after they concieve and she doesn't want to keep it, she has an additional option to remove herself from the position of responsibility without his approval. I am not arguing that she needs his approval to abort, just that she has more rights of self-determination than he does.


Yeah - and if she uses that edge to not saddle some poor bastard with a babby she doesn't want, despite the fact that he's stupid enough to object,  said poor bastard should thank Jesus or Allah or Buddha every blinkin' day of his life.
 
2014-01-22 07:14:09 PM  
 
2014-01-22 07:14:22 PM  

Ishkur: That Guy Jeff: The conservative dislike of abortion has absolutely nothing to do with women. They believe that abortion is killing a human being. They believe it is morally wrong to kill another human being,

Horseshiat. They have no problems with war adventuring, poverty, starvation, famine, and doing whatever it takes to make socially undesirable people suffer. They certainly don't care about harming others, why would they care about killing others.

Fetuses must be protected at all costs! But 100,000 Iraqi civillians -- fark 'em. They should have gotten out of the way of our missiles faster.


This sis why I stay away from the "motivation" argument. It doesn't matter what their motives are, or whether they are sincere. All that matters is stopping them.
 
2014-01-22 07:15:46 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: jso2897: That's an unequal sharing of the responsibility. They both unzipped their pants as you put it. And yet she gets a followup opportunity to discard the responsibility, while he does not because as you say, he made his choice(the only one he gets)same as she did, but that's it for him.

To take it out of the abstract into the practical. let us say, for the sake of argument, that you are ina relationship with a woman who says she wants to make babby with you, and you do, and then she chnages her mind. Assuming you have the option to force her to carry it to term and become a mother against her will - is that a wise decision? Seems like a man with any sense would consider himself well out of a bad place.

That's not the situation I am referring to. It was the OP who posited that the male contributor to a pregnancy only has one opportunity to discard the potential parental responsibility, whereas the female contributor has two, e.g. unintended pregnancy results from two people copulating, if she decides to keep it, he is on the hook and cannot remove himself from the position of responsibility without the mother's consent. If after they concieve and she doesn't want to keep it, she has an additional option to remove herself from the position of responsibility without his approval. I am not arguing that she needs his approval to abort, just that she has more rights of self-determination than he does.


Who gets pregnant? She does.  Does he?  No.
 
2014-01-22 07:16:08 PM  
If a fetus gets aborted and goes to heaven, is it stuck as a fetus for eternity?

Would they get wings for mobility or just kind of lay there in a heavenly pile?
 
2014-01-22 07:16:50 PM  

jso2897: InterruptingQuirk: jso2897: That's an unequal sharing of the responsibility. They both unzipped their pants as you put it. And yet she gets a followup opportunity to discard the responsibility, while he does not because as you say, he made his choice(the only one he gets)same as she did, but that's it for him.

To take it out of the abstract into the practical. let us say, for the sake of argument, that you are ina relationship with a woman who says she wants to make babby with you, and you do, and then she chnages her mind. Assuming you have the option to force her to carry it to term and become a mother against her will - is that a wise decision? Seems like a man with any sense would consider himself well out of a bad place.

That's not the situation I am referring to. It was the OP who posited that the male contributor to a pregnancy only has one opportunity to discard the potential parental responsibility, whereas the female contributor has two, e.g. unintended pregnancy results from two people copulating, if she decides to keep it, he is on the hook and cannot remove himself from the position of responsibility without the mother's consent. If after they concieve and she doesn't want to keep it, she has an additional option to remove herself from the position of responsibility without his approval. I am not arguing that she needs his approval to abort, just that she has more rights of self-determination than he does.

Yeah - and if she uses that edge to not saddle some poor bastard with a babby she doesn't want, despite the fact that he's stupid enough to object,  said poor bastard should thank Jesus or Allah or Buddha every blinkin' day of his life.


Well, that's one way to look at it. But any thoughts on the unequal rights that I spoke of?
 
2014-01-22 07:17:27 PM  

peacheslatour: InterruptingQuirk: jso2897: That's an unequal sharing of the responsibility. They both unzipped their pants as you put it. And yet she gets a followup opportunity to discard the responsibility, while he does not because as you say, he made his choice(the only one he gets)same as she did, but that's it for him.

To take it out of the abstract into the practical. let us say, for the sake of argument, that you are ina relationship with a woman who says she wants to make babby with you, and you do, and then she chnages her mind. Assuming you have the option to force her to carry it to term and become a mother against her will - is that a wise decision? Seems like a man with any sense would consider himself well out of a bad place.

That's not the situation I am referring to. It was the OP who posited that the male contributor to a pregnancy only has one opportunity to discard the potential parental responsibility, whereas the female contributor has two, e.g. unintended pregnancy results from two people copulating, if she decides to keep it, he is on the hook and cannot remove himself from the position of responsibility without the mother's consent. If after they concieve and she doesn't want to keep it, she has an additional option to remove herself from the position of responsibility without his approval. I am not arguing that she needs his approval to abort, just that she has more rights of self-determination than he does.

Who gets pregnant? She does.  Does he?  No.


That answer means what?
 
2014-01-22 07:19:18 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: And yet, idiots on the Right are passing a law that will make abortion illegal again.


Came to the thread to say "And in another 41 years anti-abortion activists will STILL be trying to overturn Roe-v-Wade."  But I expect it's been said by now.
 
2014-01-22 07:20:14 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: jso2897: InterruptingQuirk: jso2897: That's an unequal sharing of the responsibility. They both unzipped their pants as you put it. And yet she gets a followup opportunity to discard the responsibility, while he does not because as you say, he made his choice(the only one he gets)same as she did, but that's it for him.

To take it out of the abstract into the practical. let us say, for the sake of argument, that you are ina relationship with a woman who says she wants to make babby with you, and you do, and then she chnages her mind. Assuming you have the option to force her to carry it to term and become a mother against her will - is that a wise decision? Seems like a man with any sense would consider himself well out of a bad place.

That's not the situation I am referring to. It was the OP who posited that the male contributor to a pregnancy only has one opportunity to discard the potential parental responsibility, whereas the female contributor has two, e.g. unintended pregnancy results from two people copulating, if she decides to keep it, he is on the hook and cannot remove himself from the position of responsibility without the mother's consent. If after they concieve and she doesn't want to keep it, she has an additional option to remove herself from the position of responsibility without his approval. I am not arguing that she needs his approval to abort, just that she has more rights of self-determination than he does.

Yeah - and if she uses that edge to not saddle some poor bastard with a babby she doesn't want, despite the fact that he's stupid enough to object,  said poor bastard should thank Jesus or Allah or Buddha every blinkin' day of his life.

Well, that's one way to look at it. But any thoughts on the unequal rights that I spoke of?


No.
 
2014-01-22 07:20:45 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: peacheslatour: InterruptingQuirk: jso2897: That's an unequal sharing of the responsibility. They both unzipped their pants as you put it. And yet she gets a followup opportunity to discard the responsibility, while he does not because as you say, he made his choice(the only one he gets)same as she did, but that's it for him.

To take it out of the abstract into the practical. let us say, for the sake of argument, that you are ina relationship with a woman who says she wants to make babby with you, and you do, and then she chnages her mind. Assuming you have the option to force her to carry it to term and become a mother against her will - is that a wise decision? Seems like a man with any sense would consider himself well out of a bad place.

That's not the situation I am referring to. It was the OP who posited that the male contributor to a pregnancy only has one opportunity to discard the potential parental responsibility, whereas the female contributor has two, e.g. unintended pregnancy results from two people copulating, if she decides to keep it, he is on the hook and cannot remove himself from the position of responsibility without the mother's consent. If after they concieve and she doesn't want to keep it, she has an additional option to remove herself from the position of responsibility without his approval. I am not arguing that she needs his approval to abort, just that she has more rights of self-determination than he does.

Who gets pregnant? She does.  Does he?  No.

That answer means what?

 
2014-01-22 07:20:49 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: That answer means what?


The law, in its majestic equality, allows men as well as women to abort their fetuses.
 
2014-01-22 07:22:24 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: InterruptingQuirk: That answer means what?

The law, in its majestic equality, allows men as well as women to abort their fetuses.


Or, alternatively, forbids men as well as women to abort their fetuses. :D
 
2014-01-22 07:23:47 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: InterruptingQuirk: That answer means what?

The law, in its majestic equality, allows men as well as women to abort their fetuses.


The old "gay people can get married, just not to people of the same sex" argument. Awesome.
 
2014-01-22 07:24:46 PM  

mithras_angel: genner: hardinparamedic: genner: There's this thing called the vernacular it defines murder as the taking of a human life without just cause.

The just cause is whatever that woman says it is, below the age of awareness and viability.

Your personal discomfort with that fact is not legal jurisdiction to control the bodies of others. Sorry. Not yours.

Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins. If the government can tell me not to beat someone to death with my own fists why can't they tell a woman not to kill a baby with her body?

Because, among other things, saying "Stop, don't do that!" doesn't halt the spontanious abortions (as opposed to the clinic type) that occur far more commonly.

Approximately half of all fertilized eggs die before a woman even knows she is pregnant.  After they do know, the spontanious rate is around 20%.


Laws against abortion won't stop that, but, due to the ignorance of biology of (largely) male, Republican elected officials, it may be criminalized in certain circumstances.



We could not criminalize  spontaneous abortion, make clinical abortion illegal and elect more women to office
Not all pro life people agree with every single Republican.
 
2014-01-22 07:26:21 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: InterruptingQuirk: That answer means what?

The law, in its majestic equality, allows men as well as women to abort their fetuses.


I'm not talking about the abortion as anything more than a choice to dismiss the parental obligation comparatively to the man's potential choice to do so. Not trying to suggest that he has rights to block her choice to abort. I'm exploring his choice to abort the situation.
 
2014-01-22 07:27:40 PM  
I'd be willing to throw in a free car to any woman who's getting an abortion and also agrees to a tubal ligation.

Every woman should have the right to have sex without fear of pregnancy, after all. And have a car of her own.
 
2014-01-22 07:31:05 PM  

phalamir: EbolaNYC: Whew, I just turned 43.. MADE IT!

I'm 40.  I know my mother wanted me; you will always have to wonder...

;P


I turn 41 next week.

When I was 12 my mother, in a fit of rage because I broke a plate, told me that if abortion had been legal 7 months earlier I would not be here, and I should never forget that.


/that kind of statement sticks with a kid
 
2014-01-22 07:32:34 PM  

genner: We could not criminalize spontaneous abortion, make clinical abortion illegal and elect more women to office
Not all pro life people agree with every single Republican.


Then tell Republicans to stop holding and campaigning on those positions. Like I said above, the pro-life movement in this country would gain alot more support if they made the issue only about the fetus' life and not a whole host of other issues relating to sex and women's reproductive health.
 
2014-01-22 07:32:43 PM  

hardinparamedic: Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.

And fark you, Sir, as a man who thinks that women have the basic human right to not be forced to be an incubating meatsack for a fetus.


Know how you prevent that?  Birth control.  If you don't want to be an incubating meatsack* for a fetus, then use the diaphragm/pill/NuvaRing/IUD/or whatever works for you.  Problem solved averted.


/*The Incubating Meatsacks would be a good name for a punk-ska band.
 
2014-01-22 07:33:32 PM  

Wadded Beef: umad: Wadded Beef: umad: Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.

Men shouldn't have a choice in whether or not the woman aborts. They should have the choice to abort their parental rights and responsibilities though.

If it's the man's kid, it's his kid. They now have parental responsibilities whether they want them or not.

If women can terminate their responsibilites then men should be able to as well. If men can't, then neither should women. I don't care either way, as long as it is equal.

But it's not equal. It's only the women who are forced to carry the meatsacks and should of course have the choice whether to keep it.


Then they can have the choice whether they want to support it too. I'm just being pro-choice here.
 
2014-01-22 07:34:05 PM  
Child Murder.
 
2014-01-22 07:35:16 PM  

Phinn: I'd be willing to throw in a free car to any woman who's getting an abortion and also agrees to a tubal ligation.

Every woman should have the right to have sex without fear of pregnancy, after all. And have a car of her own.


See, and that right there is where you jumped the shark. Now I *know* you don't actually believe the steaming piles of derp and fail you're leaving for other people to clean up. Next time try not to overplay your hand so much and you might be able to stretch things out for awhile long. Or you could just find a hobby that *doesn't* exist solely to piss others off in a (likely vain) attempt to make your small and bleakly poinless life feel less soul shattering.
 
2014-01-22 07:35:29 PM  

Phinn: I'd be willing to throw in a free car to any woman who's getting an abortion and also agrees to a tubal ligation.

Every woman should have the right to have sex without fear of pregnancy, after all. And have a car of her own.


I'm conflicted between the crass cynicism of your proposal and the considerable social benefits it would confer.
Some pepole just talk about improving the gene pool.
You, sir, have a plan!
 
2014-01-22 07:35:41 PM  

fat_free: Child Murder.


Bull shiat.
 
2014-01-22 07:35:58 PM  

genner: We could not criminalize spontaneous abortion, make clinical abortion illegal and elect more women to office
Not all pro life people agree with every single Republican.


With the dissolution of all abortion clinics, women would be forced to use alternative methods, which would make every miscarriage a criminal investigation to determine whether or not it was spontaneous. Since women don't begin to show at the very beginning of a pregnancy (and some obese people hardly show at all) there would also need to be a way to determine who is pregnant at any given time so as not to miss any potential criminal abortions. I assume mandatory monthly testing of some sort would need to be put in place and a registry of the pregnant created, since the unborn can't make their situations known.

Then there's the lag time for women who are potentially pregnant but still haven't missed their periods. Something would probably have to be done to ensure that they weren't unwillingly harming their fetus with alcohol or legal drugs, which will now also need to be highly restricted to pregnant women, because the state has an overriding interest in protecting the unborn at the expense of the rights of the mother.
 
2014-01-22 07:36:31 PM  
So long as most of them were white i am ok with it.
 
2014-01-22 07:37:02 PM  
Roe v Wade was not the beginning of women having abortions in America. It was the end of women dying from abortions in America.
 
2014-01-22 07:37:13 PM  
Chicken embryo → Chicken
Elephant embryo → Elephant
Dolphin embryo → Dolphin
Polar Bear embryo → Polar Bear
Spotted Owl embryo → Spotted Owl
Human embryo → Human
 
2014-01-22 07:37:46 PM  

fat_free: Child Murder.


Third Eye.
Mystery Achievment.
Hostile Environment.
Macular Degeneration.
Moss-covered Gredunza.
 
2014-01-22 07:38:54 PM  

BobCumbers: So long as most of them were white i am ok with it.


Total, yes. By proportion of population, no.
 
2014-01-22 07:41:12 PM  

Wadded Beef: InterruptingQuirk: Wadded Beef: umad: Wadded Beef: umad: Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.

Men shouldn't have a choice in whether or not the woman aborts. They should have the choice to abort their parental rights and responsibilities though.

If it's the man's kid, it's his kid. They now have parental responsibilities whether they want them or not.

If women can terminate their responsibilites then men should be able to as well. If men can't, then neither should women. I don't care either way, as long as it is equal.

But it's not equal. It's only the women who are forced to carry the meatsacks and should of course have the choice whether to keep it.

As for men, if you've impregnated somebody, guess what: you've already made the choice available to you and that is you unzipped your pants. And you've made the de facto acceptance to the consequences. If she chooses to keep it you're on the hook.

Party responsibly.

That's an unequal sharing of the responsibility. They both unzipped their pants as you put it. And yet she gets a followup opportunity to discard the responsibility, while he does not because as you say, he made his choice(the only one he gets)same as she did, but that's it for him.

To simplify: since only a woman can carry a fetus it's her choice whether she wants to keep it. Agree?

Is a man not on the hook for the child if he chooses to have sex with her and it leads to pregnancy?

Would not the 'equal' way (as proposed above) give men free reign to spread their seed anywhere/everywhere and not have to assume any responsibility? That's his "equal" viewpoint as I read it.


Your idiotic argument precludes the concept of birth control.

Which, since only a woman can have a child, is the woman's problem.
 
2014-01-22 07:41:49 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: InterruptingQuirk: That answer means what?

The law, in its majestic equality, allows men as well as women to abort their fetuses.


"Anybody can get married, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex."
 
2014-01-22 07:43:29 PM  

Ishkur: the_vegetarian_cannibal: If abortion is only about killing a human being and not about controlling women's bodies, why do they oppose increased access to contraceptives, which is the easiest and cheapest way to prevent abortions?

Because it's never been about protecting life, it's always been about punishing women for having sex.


QFT
 
2014-01-22 07:44:00 PM  
Excellent headline BTW subby
 
2014-01-22 07:46:51 PM  

genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.


Let's test pro-life 'morals.'  If abortion is murder, then quit this nickel-and-dime chipping away at legal abortion like a bunch of Christian pussies and legislate it as murder already.  Next, come arrest ALL of us who've had one.  Arrest ALL the millions of girls, women, mothers, daughters, sisters and wives; Christians and non, for MURDER.

Let's just see just how fast abortion is no longer 'murder'.
 
2014-01-22 07:49:06 PM  
IIRC Mary Roe actually did give birth to the baby in question, and I think gave the kid up for adoption, so headline is more apt than subby gave it credit for.
 
2014-01-22 07:50:52 PM  

OooShiny: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Let's test pro-life 'morals.'  If abortion is murder, then quit this nickel-and-dime chipping away at legal abortion like a bunch of Christian pussies and legislate it as murder already.  Next, come arrest ALL of us who've had one.  Arrest ALL the millions of girls, women, mothers, daughters, sisters and wives; Christians and non, for MURDER.

Let's just see just how fast abortion is no longer 'murder'.


There are other people who have different opinions on the matter who wont pass said legislation in the Congress. Your test is impossible to conduct.
 
Displayed 50 of 452 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report