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
    More: Interesting, Happy Birthday, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, adjudications, strict scrutiny, maternal health, Fourteenth Amendment, abortion law  
•       •       •

1275 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jan 2014 at 5:35 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-01-22 09:29:59 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: InterruptingQuirk: What about the men's rights? I know that may seem like a silly question being put forth in this patriarchal society, but the one I spoke of is unequal in my mind. I know that the situation is unequal in that the woman is the one who gets pregnant, but she has been given recourse in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, the man has not.

There's only a small window in which recourse for the man would even be an option: the exact window in which abortion is legal in whatever jurisdiction the mother happens to reside. Before the pregnancy, the man has no rights over the woman's body. After abortion is off the table, the state is involved in balancing the rights of the parents and the rights of the child. It's the entire reason why abortion is illegal after a certain point. The only way to completely equalize the man's involvement during the abortion window would be for him to legally force the woman to have an abortion. Being able to opt-out of child support might lessen the appearance of inequality, but it's not technically equal.

Since Roe v. Wade was expressly about the woman's right to privacy and autonomy over her body during the allowable abortion window, any law that would take that right away would be held unconstitutional. Trying to make it somehow "equal" for the man is pointless, since only women can become pregnant, and the resulting "inequality" that exists is fruit of the poisonous tree, so to speak, and allowing a man to force a medical procedure on a woman probably runs afoul of not only Roe v. Wade but various rights regarding due process and slavery, and is also morally abhorrent.

I feel like you are conflating the issue here. There is no question in my mind that he has zero say in her having an abortion. This kid of feels like my perception of civil rights, in that your supposed civil rights are not if they infringe on someone else's civil rights. She makes a choice which, by law, takes away his choic ...


I see. So - as a practical matter, you propose to submit legislation that would relieve any and all single men of any paternal responsibilities at their disgression, based upon the legal principle that "women can get abortions".
Just to make it all "fair and square".
I don't mean to be discouraging, but I don't think that plan will cut much ice with the general electorate.
Society, after all, has a concrete interest in making dads support their kids - it has no concrete interest in stopping women from gettin abortions - they constitute no ongoing expense.
I just can't see you ever winning that one.
But, hey - you're welcome to try.
And thanks for giving me a straight up answer and satisfying my OCD - I wasn't trying to be a jerk about it.
 
2014-01-22 09:31:45 PM  

jso2897: Society, after all, has a concrete interest in making dads support their kids



Yay, a rational reason to oppose the idea! Woohoo!
 
2014-01-22 09:32:15 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: I feel like you are conflating the issue here. There is no question in my mind that he has zero say in her having an abortion. This kid of feels like my perception of civil rights, in that your supposed civil rights are not if they infringe on someone else's civil rights. She makes a choice which, by law, takes away his choice to be a dad. I am not saying that he should be allowed to force her to have an abortion. I am saying that he should be allowed to legally be a 'deadbeat dad' with no consequences for choosing that option. For all things to be equal. They both entered into this situation equally with the consensual sex. Yet, in our current system, if the woman makes a choice one way or the other, the man has no choice but to comply with her choice which affects him. I am not talking about him being part of the abortion decision. She has an out. He does not have an out.


The entire issue springs from the abortion decision. A woman who carried a pregnancy to term, gave the baby to the father, and skipped town would be equally held for child support payments as a man would. It's unlikely that would happen, since she has the ability to abort it before then, but it's possible. The Roe v. Wade decision does not enshrine the right to be a deadbeat parent, so you're basing your argument on the inherent fairness of the "right to abdicate responsibility for a child," which doesn't exist, and in arguing such you are arguing that abortion itself is avoiding responsibility for a child, which is legally wrong. There's a slim window in which the rights of the mother over her own body are more important than the rights of a potential new life, and it's precisely because the fetus is not considered a child that this right exists.

There's no "out" because there's nothing to get "out of" at that point, which is why you're able to have an abortion in the first place. After the possible abortion window closes, the state has decided that the welfare of the child is paramount, and as such holds both parents accountable equally. The dad is on the hook for support. The mom is on the hook for support. And it takes both parents to put the kid up for adoption afterward. So yeah, the entire issue is about abortion.
 
2014-01-22 09:32:29 PM  
Rivetman1.0:Sure you can,  it is called a surrogate mother. It also works the other way around and then it is called a surrogate father.

Uh, that's not force. That's a business contract that is increasingly common, if not very, VERY risky because not all states will make the contract actually stick that well. You're not forcing them to carry the baby, they agreed to for a large sum of money. And the other way around is called sperm donation.

But your friend's pregnancy was threatening her very survival so it became an operation that saved her life at the cost of her unborn fetus.

That is what happened. It isn't the outcome she wanted. She'd been told her whole life she was infertile and when she finally got pregnant her body decided to reinforce that fact. She got multiple doctor's opinions on it. It was a horribly sad situation.

Finally, let us not forget the lying and manipulative females that get pregnant on purpose and with no intention of staying with the father only the intent of getting child support from him.

I know, hard to believe.


And that's why you bring your own condoms and don't stick your dick in crazy. No one is holding these idiot men down and making them raw dog it with a psycho biatch.
 
2014-01-22 09:36:22 PM  

Boojum2k: Kahabut: Boojum2k: Boojum2k: Barring that, there a some really good classes to combat adult illiteracy. /snark


ARE. There ARE some. It's a law, if you make a statement about someone's literacy or grammar, you will fark it up.

It's called Muphry's Law, in point of fact.

Why am I not surprised.

/And retained enough brainpower to Google that before saying "You misspelled Murphy"


I was really hoping to catch someone with that.

/shakes tiny fist
 
2014-01-22 09:39:14 PM  

IM4Liberty: 55 million people lost to a socialist, eugenics experiment (killed by their mothers in many cases, no less). Social Security and other Federal entitlement programs are going backrupt because, in part, these folks aren't available to contribute to these political slush funds. Coincidence? I think it's possible.

This might be an anniversary of horror; it's certainly not a birthday to celebrate.


The Guttmacher Institute estimates that the number of women who die each year because of laws against abortion is somewhere between 47,000 and 70,000.  That works out to be something on the order of 2.5 million women's lives lost worldwide since Roe v Wade passed.

Granted, 2.5 million deaths is a lot fewer than 55 million, and the difference may be even larger when you consider that I'm talking about worldwide deaths versus those in the USA alone.  But there is an even bigger difference: these 2.5 million deaths happen to actual adult human beings, whereas the 55 million you're concerned with happen to what YOU IMAGINE TO BE innocent children.

But in any case, even if you were correct, the inescapable conclusion is that you are at the very least also guilty of the very crime you charge us with: being morally responsible for the deaths of millions of human beings.  Take a good, long look in the mirror and enjoy your hypocrisy.
 
2014-01-22 09:40:03 PM  
What? Another boy? Screw it; I've already got 5, I'm having an abortion! I'd get input from the father but I don't know who he is."

//too much?
 
2014-01-22 09:41:34 PM  

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


Parental rights and responsibilities pertain to children. These rules are all about the interests of the child. The child exists, it has needs. The relevant laws should apply equally to parents of both sexes so far as possible.

Abortion rights, from the pro-choice point of view, are essentially about the pregnant person's right to control the pregnancy. As a function of biology rather than law, the pregnant person is always female, so it is nonsensical to talk about men having rights in this area, "unequal" or otherwise. (And from the anti-abortion point of view, the question is moot because the state has control of the pregnancy.)

Again, I'm not suggesting that he should have a say in whether or not she gets an abortion. What I'm saying is that she has two opportunities to make up her mind, whereas he has only one. He had sex with her and she is now pregnant, he is obligated if she chooses to keep it. She had sex and is pregnant, she now gets to make a choice that affects him too as he has no choice to not have the kid. Again, I'm not suggesting that he should have a say in whether or not she gets an abortion. This is about his choice following intercourse and the resultant conception where she has an additional choice that he does not have.


They both participate in intercourse and (ideally) both have a choice about it. Then one of them participates in a pregnancy and has a choice about that. That only one of them is relevant to the pregnancy is a function of biology, not law, so it makes no sense to talk about it in terms of rights.

So, yes, different people have different choices to make about different things in their different lives.


umad:
Horseshiat. If the argument against men having the right to "abort" their parental responsibilities is "keep it zipped up if you don't want to take responsibility for your choices" then my argument to pro-choice women is "keep it zipped up if you don't want to take responsibility for your choices."

That's not my argument. My argument is that men do not get pregnant and therefore it is hypothetical nonsense to talk about their abortion rights. Regardless of whether actual pregnant people have such a right, or not.

Male PARENTS should have the same ability to sever their parental relationship with a CHILD, and the same attendant responsibilities, that female parents do. "But the fetus is a child" someone might say -- well, then abortion is more-or-less off the table anyway, so it's a moot point.
 
2014-01-22 09:45:41 PM  

Boojum2k: jso2897: Society, after all, has a concrete interest in making dads support their kids


Yay, a rational reason to oppose the idea! Woohoo!


I'm not arguing against his proposal. As an abstract idea, I can neither affirm nor discredit it - I'm just saying that i can't see it ever flying as a matter of law.
As a much larger issue, I have to reflect on something - if we ever adopt the attitude that fairness in society means all people posessing all  powers in exactly equal measure in every single situation - we will have gone insane.
The idea that law can deal with a situation as existentially unequal as the fact that women get pregnant, and men don't, in a manner that makes all thing equal for all is unrealistic, to put it mildly. And attempts to draw paralells to situations where there is no intrinsic, unavoidable differentiation of situation are facetious. There are human issues that are unique, and cannot be easily analogized to others.
As civilized people, we do our best to promote fairness and equality in every situation where it is possible.
It isn't always possible.
 
2014-01-22 09:47:05 PM  

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


I guess you should call your mom and thank her.....
 
HKW
2014-01-22 09:48:04 PM  

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


Parental rights and responsibilities pertain to children. These rules are all about the interests of the child. The child exists, it has needs. The relevant laws should apply equally to parents of both sexes so far as possible.

Abortion rights, from the pro-choice point of view, are essentially about the pregnant person's right to control the pregnancy. As a function of biology rather than law, the pregnant person is always female, so it is nonsensical to talk about men having rights in this area, "unequal" or otherwise. (And from the anti-abortion point of view, the question is moot because the state has control of the pregnancy.)


its quite simple: If a man dumps a load into a uterus & conceives a child, and MUST be held accountable for it, then the same holds for the holder of the uterus.   If she can go all 'fark this shiat', then the guy should be able to as well.
 
2014-01-22 09:48:05 PM  

ciberido: IM4Liberty: 55 million people lost to a socialist, eugenics experiment (killed by their mothers in many cases, no less). Social Security and other Federal entitlement programs are going backrupt because, in part, these folks aren't available to contribute to these political slush funds. Coincidence? I think it's possible.

This might be an anniversary of horror; it's certainly not a birthday to celebrate.

The Guttmacher Institute estimates that the number of women who die each year because of laws against abortion is somewhere between 47,000 and 70,000.  That works out to be something on the order of 2.5 million women's lives lost worldwide since Roe v Wade passed.

Granted, 2.5 million deaths is a lot fewer than 55 million, and the difference may be even larger when you consider that I'm talking about worldwide deaths versus those in the USA alone.  But there is an even bigger difference: these 2.5 million deaths happen to actual adult human beings, whereas the 55 million you're concerned with happen to what YOU IMAGINE TO BE innocent children.

But in any case, even if you were correct, the inescapable conclusion is that you are at the very least also guilty of the very crime you charge us with: being morally responsible for the deaths of millions of human beings.  Take a good, long look in the mirror and enjoy your hypocrisy.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-22 09:48:21 PM  

Callous: TheShavingofOccam123: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's only the woman's business or it's not. Political power to subject citizens to the whims of the majority shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's a living human being or it isn't.  Where it's physically located shouldn't be the issue.


So if you were kidnapped one day and woke up to find yourself in some sort of hospital bed hooked up to a machine and told you couldn't leave the room or detach yourself from the machine for the next 9 months (and that a person would die if you did). you'd just say "ok, well, I guess I'm stuck here" then?  You would feel morally obligated to stay, so much so that you would consider it murder to leave the room?
 
2014-01-22 09:50:02 PM  

jso2897: As a much larger issue, I have to reflect on something - if we ever adopt the attitude that fairness in society means all people posessing all powers in exactly equal measure in every single situation - we will have gone insane.



I'm pretty sure we're entering the Crazy Years already.
 
2014-01-22 09:50:49 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Endive Wombat: I read something a while back discussing how the democratic party/liberals have effectively eliminated 35-50+ million people from their voting base because of abortion.  The argument that was being made/based on is the idea that liberals have a tendency to have abortions more than conservatives...so aborting their kids = elimination of their voter base.

Not sure how accurate this speculation is, but interesting to think about nonetheless.

Liberals tend to be better at teaching their kids how sex works and how to use birth control, which reduces their need for abortions compared to the crowd that believes abstinence only education works.


Dude............. that was really funny..... Hipster type, ironically funny.  A+, job well done.

( you were joking, ....right? )
 
2014-01-22 09:51:03 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: InterruptingQuirk: Men should have an out

Not having sex. That's their out.


So abortion is unnecessary then. If women don't want to have babies, then they shouldn't have sex.
 
2014-01-22 09:51:38 PM  

ciberido: So if you were kidnapped one day and woke up to find yourself in some sort of hospital bed hooked up to a machine and told you couldn't leave the room or detach yourself from the machine for the next 9 months (and that a person would die if you did). you'd just say "ok, well, I guess I'm stuck here" then? You would feel morally obligated to stay, so much so that you would consider it murder to leave the room?



That may be the least accurate or useful analogy to pregnancy I've ever seen. And I've been on Fark for 9 years.
 
2014-01-22 09:52:48 PM  

umad: So abortion is unnecessary then. If women don't want to have babies, then they shouldn't have sex.


No, women can get an abortion. Because they get pregnant.
 
2014-01-22 09:53:47 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: umad: So abortion is unnecessary then. If women don't want to have babies, then they shouldn't have sex.

No, women can get an abortion. Because they get pregnant.



But, as you stated earlier, they could have avoided getting pregnant by not having sex.


Is consistency too much to ask for?
 
2014-01-22 09:53:51 PM  

ciberido: Callous: TheShavingofOccam123: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's only the woman's business or it's not. Political power to subject citizens to the whims of the majority shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's a living human being or it isn't.  Where it's physically located shouldn't be the issue.

So if you were kidnapped one day and woke up to find yourself in some sort of hospital bed hooked up to a machine and told you couldn't leave the room or detach yourself from the machine for the next 9 months (and that a person would die if you did). you'd just say "ok, well, I guess I'm stuck here" then?  You would feel morally obligated to stay, so much so that you would consider it murder to leave the room?


i18.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-22 09:54:45 PM  

ciberido: So if you were kidnapped one day and woke up to find yourself in some sort of hospital bed hooked up to a machine and told you couldn't leave the room or detach yourself from the machine for the next 9 months (and that a person would die if you did). you'd just say "ok, well, I guess I'm stuck here" then? You would feel morally obligated to stay, so much so that you would consider it murder to leave the room?


There's probably an interesting movie or book idea in there, if the person in question was the result of a drunken car crash on the part of the protagonist or something. Sort of a dystopian reality where eye for an eye is taken to extremes, and things you do must be repaid in flesh.
 
2014-01-22 09:55:39 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: There's probably an interesting movie or book idea in there, if the person in question was the result of a drunken car crash on the part of the protagonist or something. Sort of a dystopian reality where eye for an eye is taken to extremes, and things you do must be repaid in flesh.



"Johnny Got His Gun?"
 
2014-01-22 09:55:52 PM  

Boojum2k: Dusk-You-n-Me: umad: So abortion is unnecessary then. If women don't want to have babies, then they shouldn't have sex.

No, women can get an abortion. Because they get pregnant.


But, as you stated earlier, they could have avoided getting pregnant by not having sex.


Is consistency too much to ask for?


Nothing's too much to ask, as long as you don't have unrealistic expectations about getting it.
 
2014-01-22 09:56:12 PM  

Boojum2k: But, as you stated earlier, they could have avoided getting pregnant by not having sex.


Yes, they could have. But since they can also get pregnant, they also get another choice. Not sure what you guys aren't getting about this.
 
2014-01-22 09:56:45 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: ikanreed: The very fact that we celebrate our birthdays and not our conception days shows how unnatural and out of sync with day-to-day reality the anti-abortion crowd's opinion is.

According to some in that camp, we shouldn't be celebrating birthdays either.


"The celebration of birthdays is unknown in traditional Jewish ritual"?

So this nutcase has never heard of a bar mitzvah?
 
2014-01-22 09:57:10 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: umad: So abortion is unnecessary then. If women don't want to have babies, then they shouldn't have sex.

No, women can get an abortion. Because they get pregnant.


We've come at this from the post-birth angle...(men shouldn't have to pay support), but how about from the pre-birth angle:

Woman chooses abortion.  Man and Woman have an undivided 1/2 interest in the child.  They may have differing expectations as to whether or not to abort.  Woman chooses to abort. Man sues woman for loss of consortium and emotional distress damages.  I proffer a new tort: Zombie-baby Reverse Child Support.
 
2014-01-22 09:58:39 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: umad: So abortion is unnecessary then. If women don't want to have babies, then they shouldn't have sex.

No, women can get an abortion. Because they get pregnant.


They should have kept their pants zipped and they wouldn't have gotten pregnant.
 
2014-01-22 09:59:37 PM  

umad: They should have kept their pants zipped and they wouldn't have gotten pregnant.


Great. But having gotten pregnant, they get to choose what to do next. Not sure what you're not getting about this.
 
2014-01-22 10:00:59 PM  

Boojum2k: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: There's probably an interesting movie or book idea in there, if the person in question was the result of a drunken car crash on the part of the protagonist or something. Sort of a dystopian reality where eye for an eye is taken to extremes, and things you do must be repaid in flesh.


"Johnny Got His Gun?"


If the protagonist of that story was an artillery soldier himself, then my interesting movie or book idea is almost a hundred years too late.

Also that book sounds like the most depressing thing ever.
 
2014-01-22 10:01:57 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Boojum2k: But, as you stated earlier, they could have avoided getting pregnant by not having sex.

Yes, they could have. But since they can also get pregnant, they also get another choice.


And people are asking why men can't get another choice. Your answer is that they can't have another choice because she is pregnant and that means it is final. Well then women can just do the same. They don't need another choice either if the pregnancy means it is final.
 
2014-01-22 10:02:51 PM  

Dadoody: 55 Million babies have been killed since Roe V Wade.

Let's take a shot for each one! :D


And the only ones to survive will be the Scots!

/I'm ok with that.
 
2014-01-22 10:03:02 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Also that book sounds like the most depressing thing ever.



It is. So is the movie. But Metallica used clips for the video for "One" which is depressingly awesome.
 
2014-01-22 10:03:56 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Not sure what you're not getting about this.


We get it just fine dumbass. It still doesn't answer why couldn't men have the choice to opt out before the baby is born.
 
2014-01-22 10:05:41 PM  

umad: Dusk-You-n-Me: Not sure what you're not getting about this.

We get it just fine dumbass. It still doesn't answer why couldn't men have the choice to opt out before the baby is born.


Opt out of what?
 
2014-01-22 10:10:02 PM  

umad: And people are asking why men can't get another choice. Your answer is that they can't have another choice because she is pregnant and that means it is final. Well then women can just do the same. They don't need another choice either if the pregnancy means it is final.


umad: We get it just fine dumbass. It still doesn't answer why couldn't men have the choice to opt out before the baby is born.


I get the point you're twisting yourself into knots trying to make. Some day men will get pregnant, then you can rest easy knowing both sexes experience the situation in exactly the same way. Until then, you'll have to accept the tyranny that is human anatomy.
 
2014-01-22 10:16:56 PM  

hardinparamedic: Because an embryo and a fetus are not a baby, in any world except your own personal opinion


at what day does it qualify ? how is that different to the day before ?
 
2014-01-22 10:18:05 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: umad: And people are asking why men can't get another choice. Your answer is that they can't have another choice because she is pregnant and that means it is final. Well then women can just do the same. They don't need another choice either if the pregnancy means it is final.

umad: We get it just fine dumbass. It still doesn't answer why couldn't men have the choice to opt out before the baby is born.

I get the point you're twisting yourself into knots trying to make. Some day men will get pregnant, then you can rest easy knowing both sexes experience the situation in exactly the same way. Until then, you'll have to accept the tyranny that is human anatomy.


I'm not twisting shiat. If abstinence-only is a valid argument against men being able to opt out of their responsibilities, then it is a valid argument against abortion in all cases except for rape and incest. You are using the very same farking argument that the pro-life fundie tards are famous for.

I'm as pro-choice as they come, but your opponents' horseshiat arguments aren't any more valid when you fling them. The fact that women get pregnant has nothing to do with why it is supposedly im-farking-possible to give a man another option after conception and before birth.
 
2014-01-22 10:19:15 PM  
A foundation ruling and one of only a few cornerstone legal decisions that demonstrate the US commitment to human rights. Brown v. Board is another.
 
2014-01-22 10:21:47 PM  

Ringshadow: Rivetman1.0:Sure you can,  it is called a surrogate mother. It also works the other way around and then it is called a surrogate father.

Uh, that's not force.


Here is your statement "You can NOT make someone else carry a child. " Try to respond  to the actual statement you made that someone rebuts you with
So, yes you can make someone carry a child for you.

And that's why you bring your own condoms and don't stick your dick in crazy. No one is holding these idiot men down and making them raw dog it with a psycho biatch.

Idiot men?

buhbye
 
2014-01-22 10:23:34 PM  

That Guy Jeff: No, they just prioritize "right to live" over "right to control your own body".


No, they are prioritizing one "person's" right to live over another person's right to live. This is so completely about controlling women no matter how many times you try to spin it around in this thread.
 
2014-01-22 10:24:19 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: FlashHarry: here's to 4+ decades of empowering progressive women and enraging conservative men.

I'll drink to that, cheers.


Um, Mags?


Never mind. I'll join you. 
Bottoms up.
 
2014-01-22 10:25:10 PM  

That Guy Jeff: But preserving people's lives trumps individual rights all the time. Why is this case special? :D


Because they're still prioritizing one individual over another, by their own definition.
 
2014-01-22 10:26:08 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: The My Little Pony Killer: That Guy Jeff: Because you live in a democracy? Again, you're putting words in their mouth. They don't give a flying fark about your body, and they don't want possession of it. All they care about is that you do not murder anyone. That's it.

They're still hypocrites then, because what they're advocating is putting more lives into danger because their sole focus is just on one itty bitty little part of the picture.

They care about the fetuses. We get that. They need to take that sight, look around a bit, and realize that women really are people too, and hell, we're people long before the zygote or fetus ever even gets that far.

Their beliefs about what life is or isn't should not trump what another person may legally do with her own body. Period.

Also who they may marry and well. Blue laws etc. still rule in lot's of places. Why can I buy booze at 10am on a Wednesday but not a Sunday? Get religion out of my government .


This this this this this.

YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS DO NOT TRUMP ANOTHER PERSON'S RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY. END OF STORY.
 
2014-01-22 10:26:32 PM  

umad: If abstinence-only is a valid argument against men being able to opt out of their responsibilities


Not having sex isn't opting out of their responsibilities, it prevents the responsibilities of pregnancy from occurring in the first place. If men got pregnant, they would get a second choice. But they don't, so they don't.

Rivetman1.0: Idiot men?

buhbye


The guy who used the phrase "lying and manipulative females" is offended when someone calls men idiots. Neato.
 
2014-01-22 10:27:52 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: But they don't, so they don't.


DANCE MONKEY DANCE!!!

You won't ever answer, so fark off.
 
2014-01-22 10:29:05 PM  

umad: You won't ever answer, so fark off.


I did answer. You don't like the answer, fine, but that ain't my problem.
 
2014-01-22 10:30:14 PM  

Rivetman1.0: Try to respond  to the actual statement you made that someone rebuts you with
So, yes you can make someone carry a child for you.


Hey, herp-a-derp.

You can form a contract with someone wherein they agree to carry a pregnancy to term for you. You still are not forcing them to do so.
 
2014-01-22 10:30:45 PM  
Subby, that headline is beautiful. It's kinda subtle though, maybe Happy Birth-Day ?
 
2014-01-22 10:32:39 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: I did answer.


static5.depositphotos.com
 
2014-01-22 10:33:54 PM  
He mad.
 
Displayed 50 of 452 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | 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