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  
•       •       •

1273 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 10:35:08 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: 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.


I'm out of booze and on to water I'm trying to do better about my drunk late night posting. Some of it even scared me since I don't remember doing it.
 
2014-01-22 10:35:36 PM  

KeelingLovesCornholes: 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.


The US government should put an automatic abortion booth on every street corner that dispenses $25 gift cards and another $25 in lottery tickets.

Plus the keys to a new Cadillac SUV if she selects the "sterilization" option.
 
2014-01-22 10:35:52 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: He mad.


You're crazy.
 
2014-01-22 10:38:06 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: You're crazy.


No way! I think I've played it straight in here.
 
2014-01-22 10:39:44 PM  

Phinn: KeelingLovesCornholes: 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.

The US government should put an automatic abortion booth on every street corner that dispenses $25 gift cards and another $25 in lottery tickets.

Plus the keys to a new Cadillac SUV if she selects the "sterilization" option.


Can we also get suicide booths? Would be interesting if ya mixed up the two on accident.
 
2014-01-22 10:41:08 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: Can we also get suicide booths? Would be interesting if ya mixed up the two on accident.


Old guy: "I just wanted to make a phone call! Aaaaaaggghhhh!"
 
2014-01-22 10:43:06 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: tinfoil-hat maggie: You're crazy.

No way! I think I've played it straight in here.


Well, that's why your'e crazy.

/Sorry I re-watched catch -22 last night and found a new used copy of the book a few days ago : )
 
2014-01-22 10:43:19 PM  

Boojum2k: tinfoil-hat maggie: Can we also get suicide booths? Would be interesting if ya mixed up the two on accident.

Old guy: "I just wanted to make a phone call! Aaaaaaggghhhh!"


Is that the sound of him getting suicided or an unplanned abortion?
 
2014-01-22 10:43:29 PM  

umad: 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.


Attention men, unless you have had a vasectomy or are naturally sterile, every time you have vaginal sex with a woman there is a risk she could get pregnant.  Furthermore, she gets to decide whether to keep the baby or not regardless of what you want and you may be held financially responsible for the child if she decides to keep it.  If you don't trust the woman you are having sex with then I suggest you don't have sex with her any more (at least not vaginally).
 
2014-01-22 10:45:18 PM  

Boojum2k: tinfoil-hat maggie: Can we also get suicide booths? Would be interesting if ya mixed up the two on accident.

Old guy: "I just wanted to make a phone call! Aaaaaaggghhhh!"


Sure like anyone believe in phone booths anymore.
 
2014-01-22 10:45:20 PM  

Phinn: Boojum2k: tinfoil-hat maggie: Can we also get suicide booths? Would be interesting if ya mixed up the two on accident.

Old guy: "I just wanted to make a phone call! Aaaaaaggghhhh!"

Is that the sound of him getting suicided or an unplanned abortion?



At that point, what's the difference?
 
2014-01-22 10:46:04 PM  

Boojum2k: Phinn: Boojum2k: tinfoil-hat maggie: Can we also get suicide booths? Would be interesting if ya mixed up the two on accident.

Old guy: "I just wanted to make a phone call! Aaaaaaggghhhh!"

Is that the sound of him getting suicided or an unplanned abortion?


At that point, what's the difference?


If you have to ask ...
 
2014-01-22 10:46:16 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: Boojum2k: tinfoil-hat maggie: Can we also get suicide booths? Would be interesting if ya mixed up the two on accident.

Old guy: "I just wanted to make a phone call! Aaaaaaggghhhh!"

Sure like anyone believe in phone booths anymore.



Old guy I say!

Or, "Tonight, on a dark and tragic episode of Doctor Who. . . "
 
2014-01-22 10:47:17 PM  

Phinn: Boojum2k: Phinn: Boojum2k: tinfoil-hat maggie: Can we also get suicide booths? Would be interesting if ya mixed up the two on accident.

Old guy: "I just wanted to make a phone call! Aaaaaaggghhhh!"

Is that the sound of him getting suicided or an unplanned abortion?


At that point, what's the difference?

If you have to ask ...



Either way, he's no longer complaining about his prostate.
 
2014-01-22 10:54:46 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: 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.


The vast majorities of pregnancies aren't life threatening. Your statements would only be valid if the mother died whenever a child was born. In the extremely rare event where that's the case, then yes, they would be prioritizing the life of one person over the life of another. I'm willing to bet that scenario would be significantly less contentious if the "main" issue wasn't so contentious. But for the vast majority of abortions, you're simply wrong: they are prioritizing the life of one human over the "body rights" of another, not the life of another. Let's be honest, it's 3-6 months of being crazy inconvenienced and hormonal and fat, but it's rarely ever in the same ballpark as "being dead".

Now remember, I'm pro-choice. But I'm also pro-accurate information and believe that making up crazy positions for your "enemies" doesn't help solve anything. You know that whole "divided country" thing? You're directly contributing to that by insisting on changing their goal of "stop what we think are murders" to your conspiracy of "the patriarchy is trying to control womyn!" Maybe my view of the matter is just really slanted by the fact that I know far more women who are pro-life than men. And the only dude I know who is pro-life isn't religious and would otherwise be considered a feminist. He just thinks fetuses are alive, and they are human, thus it's wrong to kill them for any reason other than "to save another life", even if that means some other rights have to be compromised. I'm OK with him thinking that, too. It's not an unreasonable position. It's ultimately wrong, but it's not unreasonable. As this is nominally a democracy with all it's crazy "you don't have to agree but you do have to compromise" rules, I'm not going to fault him or anyone else for that position. Ideally (discarding all pragmatism) we would live in anarchy where "if you don't like _____, just don't get one/buy one/see one/read one/pay for one/etc" would be the ultimate rule. But alas, pragmatism requires we band together and have to live with rules we don't like and compromised and reduced rights and endlessly debate really ethically complicated situations in which both side have perfectly valid points.
 
2014-01-22 11:00:34 PM  

Rivetman1.0: Idiot men?

buhbye


If you have unprotected sex with a chick and you have the gall to be surprised when they get pregnant and get your ass for child support, you are an idiot.

/and there are multiple TV shows dedicated to your idiot ass
//don't be a fool wrap your tool
 
2014-01-22 11:05:47 PM  

Ringshadow: If you have unprotected sex with a chick and you have the gall to be surprised when they get pregnant and get your ass for child support, you are an idiot.



And women wonder why guys like anal sex.
 
2014-01-22 11:13:22 PM  
i.e. the 'men have no parental rights but total responsibility' decision.

Because men and women should be equal. Unless not.


DIDIR?
 
2014-01-22 11:13:52 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: demaL-demaL-yeH: 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.

I'm out of booze and on to water I'm trying to do better about my drunk late night posting. Some of it even scared me since I don't remember doing it.


It's OK. (I'm drinking coffee.)
Bottoms up.
 
2014-01-22 11:15:10 PM  

AirForceVet: I, for one, welcome our new abortionist overlords.

Oh, abortions have been legal for how many years?

I, for one, welcomed our new abortionist overlords.


It depends on which state you live in.

Ronald Reagan made abortion legal in my state in 1967.
 
2014-01-22 11:18:14 PM  

Mean Daddy: Roe vs. Wade gets a birthday.  55 million Amerikans don't.  Most of them minority.  Remind me which party is racist?


darkmachine.org

You guys never give up on the "You're the REAL bigots!" schtick, do you?
 
2014-01-22 11:22:28 PM  
The sooner people realize that we're all animals, the sooner you'll realize all of this is just ramblings on.
If you think for a second that you're above any creature in the kingdom, then you're just kidding yourself.
We're all animals, and if you haven't realized it by now, then, hopefully someone will come hit you on the
head with a hard object and let you realize it.
 
2014-01-22 11:24:11 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: tinfoil-hat maggie: demaL-demaL-yeH: 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.

I'm out of booze and on to water I'm trying to do better about my drunk late night posting. Some of it even scared me since I don't remember doing it.

It's OK. (I'm drinking coffee.)
Bottoms up.


Cool. water this late makes me feel better in the morning anyway.
 
2014-01-22 11:30:20 PM  
Remember everyone: Fetuses are sacred. Children are a welfare plague that need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps!!!
 
2014-01-22 11:32:10 PM  

Lorelle: AirForceVet: I, for one, welcome our new abortionist overlords.

Oh, abortions have been legal for how many years?

I, for one, welcomed our new abortionist overlords.

It depends on which state you live in.

Ronald Reagan made abortion legal in my state in 1967.


Stop!
If you name three facts about Real Reagan, Zombie Reagan disappears in a puff of logic.
/Real Reagan was a union member. He was even a union president. (Take that, neo(confederate)s!)
//Real Reagan was for gun control his entire political career, and not "just in his senility".
///Slashies come in threes!
 
2014-01-22 11:53:48 PM  

kerrigand: The sooner people realize that we're all animals, the sooner you'll realize all of this is just ramblings on.
If you think for a second that you're above any creature in the kingdom, then you're just kidding yourself.
We're all animals, and if you haven't realized it by now, then, hopefully someone will come hit you on the
head with a hard object and let you realize it.


Hitting people on the head with hard objects never helps.

The Useless Song

If people ain't much good
Just hit 'em on the hood
But though you hit 'em good and hard,
they're never out for good.
Useless, it's useless - even when you're playing rough.
Take it from me, it's useless - you're never rough enough.

Kurt Weil
-Rand Paul
 
2014-01-22 11:54:42 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.


The cost-benefit ratio of that plan is terrible.

My alternative proposal; Free weekly lottery tickets to every man who undergoes a voluntary vasectomy.

A fraction of the cost, medically trivial, and most attractive to men with poor impulse control.
 
2014-01-23 12:02:47 AM  
I find it funny that people distance themselves from the bible as far as they possibly can. Yet when asked,
if the meek shall inherit the earth. They're the first ones to step up and say yes, we will.

Unknowing to them, that by evolutionary standards, they're the weakest link.
 
2014-01-23 12:04:35 AM  

Rev.K: Shostie: Holy sh*t, that headline took me a minute.

It's pretty good.


Seems rather obvious.
 
2014-01-23 12:09:41 AM  

kerrigand: I find it funny that people distance themselves from the bible as far as they possibly can. Yet when asked,
if the meek shall inherit the earth. They're the first ones to step up and say yes, we will.

Unknowing to them, that by evolutionary standards, they're the weakest link.



"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change."

- Charles Darwin
 
2014-01-23 12:12:06 AM  

ciberido: genner


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?


That analogy only works if I was responsible for sending said person to the hospital in the first place.  So yes I would and depending on how I sent that person to the hospital I could be convicted of murder if he died.
 
2014-01-23 12:12:24 AM  

Hickory-smoked: kerrigand: I find it funny that people distance themselves from the bible as far as they possibly can. Yet when asked,
if the meek shall inherit the earth. They're the first ones to step up and say yes, we will.

Unknowing to them, that by evolutionary standards, they're the weakest link.


"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change."

- Charles Darwin


Yeah, Darwin was correct, we are destined to fail as a species.
 
2014-01-23 12:16:01 AM  

ciberido: Mean Daddy: Roe vs. Wade gets a birthday.  55 million Amerikans don't.  Most of them minority.  Remind me which party is racist?

[darkmachine.org image 543x600]

You guys never give up on the "You're the REAL bigots!" schtick, do you?


What do you mean "you guys"?
 
2014-01-23 12:23:19 AM  

That Guy Jeff: The My Little Pony Killer: 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.

The vast majorities of pregnancies aren't life threatening. Your statements would only be valid if the mother died whenever a child was born. In the extremely rare event where that's the case, then yes, they would be prioritizing the life of one person over the life of another. I'm willing to bet that scenario would be significantly less contentious if the "main" issue wasn't so contentious. But for the vast majority of abortions, you're simply wrong: they are prioritizing the life of one human over the "body rights" of another, not the life of another. Let's be honest, it's 3-6 months of being crazy inconvenienced and hormonal and fat, but it's rarely ever in the same ballpark as "being dead".

Now remember, I'm pro-choice. But I'm also pro-accurate information and believe that making up crazy positions for your "enemies" doesn't help solve anything. You know that whole "divided country" thing? You're directly contributing to that by insisting on changing their goal of "stop what we think are murders" to your conspiracy of "the patriarchy is trying to control womyn!" Maybe my view of the matter is just really slanted by the fact that I know far more women who are pro-life than men. And the only dude I know who is pro-life isn't religious and would otherwise be considered a feminist. He just thinks fetuses are alive, and they are human, thus it's wrong to kill them for any reason other than "to save another life", even if that means some other rights have to be compromised. I'm OK with him thinking that, too. It's not an unreasonable position. It's ultimately wrong, but it's not unreasonable. As this is nominally a democracy with all it's craz ...



It's true that it isn't "completely" about controlling women, and there's always more than one rationale for a given position, and yes you have an anecdote about knowing the irreligious feminist abortion unicorn because of course you do, but it would be ridiculous to claim that *in general* support for anti-abortion positions isn't about controlling women *at all*.

Any anti-abortion person who would favour of a rape exception is admitting that a key factor is whether the pregnant woman is *at fault* for her condition. Which would be wholly irrelevant, if they were concerned only with treating a fetus as a person and not at all with forcing women to face the "natural" consequences of having sex. Even an exception for the health of the mother is really quite inconsistent with the notion that abortion is killing a human being; we would not allow such an excuse for homicide in other circumstances.

Much of the opposition to abortion rights is delivered in the context of a broader anti-sex, anti-gay, anti-birth-control, anti-feminist, anti-secular agenda; it seems a little absurd to assume that's a meaningless correlation.
 
2014-01-23 12:28:25 AM  

Hickory-smoked: 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.

The cost-benefit ratio of that plan is terrible.

My alternative proposal; Free weekly lottery tickets to every man who undergoes a voluntary vasectomy.

A fraction of the cost, medically trivial, and most attractive to men with poor impulse control.



Reducing the number of males (or the number of fertile males, as it were) in a population has a negligible effect on a population's size or growth rate.  Other males simply fill the gap, as it were of the absent or non-fertile males.  Female fertility is the overwhelmingly critical factor, as any biologist or game warden will tell you.  Sperm is cheap and plentiful and easy to spread quickly.  Eggs are expensive and pregnancies are long.

Compare the cost of one Cadillac to, say, avoiding the creation of several generations of lifetime net losses to society.  No comparison.

Women get the new car.  Men get a coupon for a double-meat combo meal at Burger King.  It's unfair, but the disparity in incentives is biologically and economically necessary, I'm afraid.
 
2014-01-23 12:29:24 AM  
 
2014-01-23 12:36:39 AM  

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 about both, more one for some, more the other for others.  Saying opposition to legal abortion is only about punishing women may be ridiculous, but no more so than claiming it's only about saving innocent lives.

And since we're going to have this argument, take a look at this "Pro-Life Belief chart."  I don't claim to agree whole-heartedly with everything in it, but one does have to address those points if one wants to intelligently deny that there's merit to the "punishing women" claim.
 
2014-01-23 12:43:01 AM  

ciberido: I don't claim to agree whole-heartedly with everything in it



That's good, because it's almost entirely a logical fail. If I want to know a pro-lifers beliefs, I'll ask her or him, same as with a pro-choice individual.

Seriously, start with the first one: Abortion bans which protect the mother from legal consequences. Chartmaker thinks "Is this policy consistent with punishing women for having sex? Yes" The rest continues this ridiculous stream of garbage.
 
2014-01-23 01:00:58 AM  
Monkeyfark Ridiculous: It's true that it isn't "completely" about controlling women, and there's always more than one rationale for a given position, and yes you have an anecdote about knowing the irreligious feminist abortion unicorn because of course you do, but it would be ridiculous to claim that *in general* support for anti-abortion positions isn't about controlling women *at all*.

In general? Nope, anti-abortion is about not killing babies. Oh, I'm sure you can find someone who's cackling about the opportunity to control women, but they would be a tiny minority. I know I've never, ever heard someone say "This way, we can tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies!" In fact, the only time "women's rights" ever even comes up in the conversation is when it's a pro-abortion person talking.

Any anti-abortion person who would favour of a rape exception is admitting that a key factor is whether the pregnant woman is *at fault* for her condition. Which would be wholly irrelevant, if they were concerned only with treating a fetus as a person and not at all with forcing women to face the "natural" consequences of having sex. Even an exception for the health of the mother is really quite inconsistent with the notion that abortion is killing a human being; we would not allow such an excuse for homicide in other circumstances.

I didn't say anything about a rape exception. My brother, the guy who's non-religious but pro-life, wouldn't make such an exception. Yeah, rape sucks. But so does murder, and getting raped doesn't justify a murder, so sorry you have to give birth to a kid now, we'll try and catch your rapists and punish him as soon as we can. And we totally allowing killing people to save your own life.

Much of the opposition to abortion rights is delivered in the context of a broader anti-sex, anti-gay, anti-birth-control, anti-feminist, anti-secular agenda; it seems a little absurd to assume that's a meaningless correlation.

True, because a lot of the opponents of abortion are religious and quite a bit of religion is founded on oppressing women. But while there is overlap, all those issues aren't one solid front. There's a lot of variance person to person and issue to issue. That's one of the problems with demonizing and dividing people, by the way. It takes people who might otherwise be in the middle of the road on a lot of issues and polarizes them. Turning everything into an all-or-nothing war between left and right or religious and non-religious pushes people away from the center and causes someone who only cares about one issue to support other ones too just to fight the other side. For example, one of my aunts is VERY anti abortion. She's one of the "There's a baby holocaust going on!" types. You could put the best dude in the world up for election, but if he has a "D" after his name she WILL NOT even consider voting for him/her because the Democratic party supports abortion in it's platform. And that's all there is to it for her. The polarization is so intense that every ballot comes down to "Supports Abortion / Doesn't Support Abortion". If there was less polarization on the issue, she might well be inclined to take a more nuanced view of the world, but in the All Out Battle of Us VS Them there's no room for that. And telling her that she doesn't actually want to save babies lives, all she's doing is trying to control women doesn't help the issue.
 
2014-01-23 01:11:15 AM  

That Guy Jeff: 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.


Pretty old.  1894, to be precise.  The original quote is by Anatole France.
 
2014-01-23 01:21:33 AM  

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'.



I'm surprised nobody's yet quoted Florynce Kennedy: "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
 
2014-01-23 01:25:17 AM  

ciberido: "If men could get pregnant, biology would be completely different and our social mores would be unrecognizable."


FTFH
 
2014-01-23 01:45:57 AM  

That Guy Jeff: I didn't say anything about a rape exception. My brother, the guy who's non-religious but pro-life, wouldn't make such an exception. Yeah, rape sucks. But so does murder, and getting raped doesn't justify a murder, so sorry you have to give birth to a kid now, we'll try and catch your rapists and punish him as soon as we can. And we totally allowing killing people to save your own life.


I know, *I* said something about a rape exception because it is a common thing in abortion politics which is logically incompatible with the idea that the anti-abortion political position is purely about murder of fetus-persons.

And no, we do not totally allow you to murder an *innocent* person, even to save your own life (and certainly not just to spare yourself some non-life-threatening health problem).

As for the rest of your remarks, yes, everyone has their own reasons and arguments for their positions and these vary. On *both* sides. I have already agreed that anti-abortion advocacy isn't all about controlling women.I'm just saying (a) you shouldn't pretend control of women doesn't factor into anti-abortion advocacy at all, because it does, and (b) the mere existence of your brother's position doesn't shield others' motivations from criticism.


That Guy Jeff: In fact, the only time "women's rights" ever even comes up in the conversation is when it's a pro-abortion person talking.


Gasp. You don't farking say.

/very few people are "pro-abortion" -  you are giving yourself away there
 
2014-01-23 01:59:39 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: That Guy Jeff: In fact, the only time "women's rights" ever even comes up in the conversation is when it's a pro-abortion person talking.

Gasp. You don't farking say.

/very few people are "pro-abortion" -  you are giving yourself away there


Exactly.

I'm "pro-choice".  I would ~love~ to live in a world were abortion wasn't necessary, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.  Until such time, I support a woman's right to choose, but also support other options, such as adoption.

The problem with a large portion of the pro-life group is that they're also anti-condom, anti-sex education, anti-anything that would actually reduce the number of abortions necessary.  And pro-abstinence, which doesn't work, which they'd know if they remembered being a teenager.


And the politicians who are in the pro-life group are commonly against support services that would help disadvantaged children.  So it often comes across as a "we want you to be born, but once you are, you're on your own".  And then they often claim to be Christian.  Always fun, that.
 
2014-01-23 02:15:21 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: That Guy Jeff: I didn't say anything about a rape exception. My brother, the guy who's non-religious but pro-life, wouldn't make such an exception. Yeah, rape sucks. But so does murder, and getting raped doesn't justify a murder, so sorry you have to give birth to a kid now, we'll try and catch your rapists and punish him as soon as we can. And we totally allowing killing people to save your own life.

I know, *I* said something about a rape exception because it is a common thing in abortion politics which is logically incompatible with the idea that the anti-abortion political position is purely about murder of fetus-persons.

And no, we do not totally allow you to murder an *innocent* person, even to save your own life (and certainly not just to spare yourself some non-life-threatening health problem).


When you try to come up with situations that are exceptions and the opposition accepts some of those exceptions, it's not very fair to turn around and say "Hah! It's logically inconsistent to support that!" I would take making exceptions as a positive sign that people are trying to compromise.

Here, try this for inconstancy:   http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Only 1% of people polled supported abortion being *always legal*, that is, women's body rights always trumping fetus "living rights". 85% say there's a point where fetus rights outweigh women's rights. The number of people applying a consistent, unyielding belief in women's rights to control their bodies is downright *trivial*, across the board. If women had an absolute right to control their bodies or believed that they should, wouldn't that number be a lot higher? It's "logically incompatible" to say women have a right to control their bodies at the cost of a potential human life but then make exceptions for the age of the fetus. :P

Anyhow, it doesn't really matter. I'm not trying to point out gotchas or even solve the debate. We both agree on the issue. What we disagree on is the usefulness of shouting "women hater" or "baby killer" at each other. I do believe, and will continue to believe, that saying the anti-abortion peeps are doing what they do to control women is an extreme misrepresentation of their motives and goals EQUAL in error to saying pro-abortion peeps like killing babies. I'm sure somewhere there's someone who wants to use abortions to control women, and I'm sure somewhere there's someone who likes killing babies. But I've never met either of them and they certainly aren't the norm.

/very few people are "pro-abortion" -  you are giving yourself away there

Pro-abortion being shorthand for "pro-abortion rights" because "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are deceptive labels that aren't entirely descriptive of the issues and I'm getting tired of using them. Call the sides whatever you want.
 
2014-01-23 02:16:04 AM  

InterruptingQuirk: Man and woman have consensual sex. Unintended pregnancy occurs. Man does not want child. Woman decides to keep it. Woman has child. Man now obligated to mother and child. Woman had choice man did not. She had the option after conception. Her choice affected the man. The man can do nothing about this choice. Why does he not have a choice to not support her choice?(double negative, I know) Basically, why doesn't he have the right to become a deadbeat dad?


Because, in a word, biology.

As has been said already in this thread, come up with a way a man can carry a baby to term, or better yet, an artificial womb so that the fetus can grow into a baby without needing to be inside anyone's body, and then we'll talk about men's rights and "financial abortion."

Until then, it's just tough cookies, I'm afraid.
 
2014-01-23 02:28:23 AM  

BrassArt: Here's to 4 decades of an unreversed court decision based on a lie.


I'm probably wasting my breath trying to suss out any sort of reasoning from you, but what "lie" do you imagine that Roe-v-Wade is based upon?
 
2014-01-23 02:42:40 AM  

That Guy Jeff: Pro-abortion being shorthand for "pro-abortion rights" because "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are deceptive labels that aren't entirely descriptive of the issues and I'm getting tired of using them. Call the sides whatever you want.


On the contrary, "pro-abortion" is completely deceptive.  People who want abortion to be safe and legal don't want there to be MORE abortions.  We want there to be FEWER abortions thanks to preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

That is something that everyone should be able to agree on, but sadly, a lot of the Pro-Life crowd is ALSO opposed to contraceptives, sex education, and other measures which would significantly decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies.

And on what basis exactly do you see "pro-Choice" as misleading?
 
2014-01-23 02:48:24 AM  

mithras_angel: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: That Guy Jeff: In fact, the only time "women's rights" ever even comes up in the conversation is when it's a pro-abortion person talking.

Gasp. You don't farking say.

/very few people are "pro-abortion" -  you are giving yourself away there

Exactly.

I'm "pro-choice".  I would ~love~ to live in a world were abortion wasn't necessary, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.  Until such time, I support a woman's right to choose, but also support other options, such as adoption.

The problem with a large portion of the pro-life group is that they're also anti-condom, anti-sex education, anti-anything that would actually reduce the number of abortions necessary.  And pro-abstinence, which doesn't work, which they'd know if they remembered being a teenager.


And the politicians who are in the pro-life group are commonly against support services that would help disadvantaged children.  So it often comes across as a "we want you to be born, but once you are, you're on your own".  And then they often claim to be Christian.  Always fun, that.


Again, there's absolutely nothing inconsistent with being against (what you consider to be) murder and not wanted to be forced into paying for/helping out disadvantaged children. Inconsistency would be if they weren't against murdering disadvantaged children. But yes, not being socialists is very anti-Christian.
 
2014-01-23 02:59:35 AM  

ciberido: That Guy Jeff: Pro-abortion being shorthand for "pro-abortion rights" because "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are deceptive labels that aren't entirely descriptive of the issues and I'm getting tired of using them. Call the sides whatever you want.

On the contrary, "pro-abortion" is completely deceptive.  People who want abortion to be safe and legal don't want there to be MORE abortions.  We want there to be FEWER abortions thanks to preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

That is something that everyone should be able to agree on, but sadly, a lot of the Pro-Life crowd is ALSO opposed to contraceptives, sex education, and other measures which would significantly decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies.

And on what basis exactly do you see "pro-Choice" as misleading?


Pro-choice is deceptive because that means the other side is anti-choice. But their goal isn't removing choices, it's stopping what they consider to be murders. No one has the "choice" to be a murderer. Hell, they would just say "I am pro-choice, the choice of the baby. Let's let him grow up and see if he wants to live." :P Just like pro-life is deceptive because the other side isn't "anti-life". The correct titles would be pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion rights. Even that's not entirely fair because almost no one is in favor of absolute abortion rights, and only about 20% people are against abortion rights entirely. So an even better name would be "generally against the expansion or maintaining of current levels of abortion rights" and "generally for the expansion or maintaining of current levels of abortion rights". That's kind of a pain to type out though. So I'll just say "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" to get make it understood which of the two groups I'm referencing, regardless of whatever pedantic openings that makes.
 
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