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.

(Some Guy)   From the "you're not helping" files: donate $10 or more to a DC-area pro-choice fund, and get a free coat hanger pendant   (dcabortionfund.org ) divider line
    More: Sick, helping  
•       •       •

3348 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2014 at 12:14 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



116 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-19 10:53:58 AM  
DCAF coat hanger

Read that as DIAF coat hanger.  Which, I suppose, would be anti-abortion.
 
2014-03-19 10:54:09 AM  
Hey, the Christians made a cruel device of death into their symbol, so why not?
 
2014-03-19 10:56:00 AM  
I googled "DC abortion fund" instead of clicking and sure enough:
1. It is legit; they raise money to help broke women pay for an abortion
2. Their "coat hanger pendant" is something they're actually giving to donors
3. This has set the right wing blogs ablaze.  Can't say I blame 'em.
 
2014-03-19 10:58:42 AM  
Otherwise known as the alternative.
 
2014-03-19 11:00:50 AM  

factoryconnection: 3. This has set the right wing blogs ablaze.  Can't say I blame 'em.


Considering that the right wing wants to ban abortion clinics so that women go back to the coat hanger, I blame them plenty. Bunch of farking hypocrites.
 
2014-03-19 11:07:25 AM  
Awesome.  I'm going to get at least a dozen.
 
2014-03-19 11:11:08 AM  
3. This has set the right wing blogs ablaze.  Can't say I blame 'em.

I see absolutely no problem in reminding people of one of the actual consequence of restricting abortion.
 
2014-03-19 11:16:15 AM  

vartian: I see absolutely no problem in reminding people of one of the actual consequence of restricting abortion.


Okay but why is it so wrong for those of us who value GOD and FAMILY and RESPONSIBILITY to remind WHORISH SLUTS of the actual consequences of having FILTHY SEXUAL INTERCOURSE and corrupting men's souls and bodily fluids?
 
2014-03-19 11:30:35 AM  

kronicfeld: vartian: I see absolutely no problem in reminding people of one of the actual consequence of restricting abortion.

Okay but why is it so wrong for those of us who value GOD and FAMILY and RESPONSIBILITY to remind WHORISH SLUTS of the actual consequences of having FILTHY SEXUAL INTERCOURSE and corrupting men's souls and bodily fluids?


We must protect the sanctity of anal sex at all costs.
 
2014-03-19 11:52:59 AM  
I've donated to the DCAF. All I get from them is more and more letters begging for more money.
 
2014-03-19 11:56:07 AM  

Rincewind53: I've donated to the DCAF. All I get from them is more and more letters begging for more money.


... you were hoping for some phone numbers?
 
2014-03-19 11:56:39 AM  

Theaetetus: Considering that the right wing wants to ban abortion clinics so that women go back to the coat hanger, I blame them plenty. Bunch of farking hypocrites.


vartian: I see absolutely no problem in reminding people of one of the actual consequence of restricting abortion.



Points taken, and I agree about the need for abortion rights in this country because of where it leaves us otherwise.  I still agree with Subby that this falls under the "you're not helping" category of PR campaigns.
 
2014-03-19 11:59:13 AM  

Rincewind53: I've donated to the DCAF. All I get from them is more and more letters begging for more money.


You probably haven't donated enough for the coat hanger necklace yet.  Right now, you're up to "sock her in the gut with a hammer" level.
 
2014-03-19 12:00:12 PM  

factoryconnection: Theaetetus: Considering that the right wing wants to ban abortion clinics so that women go back to the coat hanger, I blame them plenty. Bunch of farking hypocrites.

vartian: I see absolutely no problem in reminding people of one of the actual consequence of restricting abortion.

Points taken, and I agree about the need for abortion rights in this country because of where it leaves us otherwise.  I still agree with Subby that this falls under the "you're not helping" category of PR campaigns.


I disagree... There aren't many fencesitters at this point, so you don't really have to play nice so that some person who hasn't really thought about the issue will swing to one side or the other. This is more about reminding people why donations, lobbying efforts, and pressure on legislators is necessary.
 
2014-03-19 12:04:21 PM  

Theaetetus: I disagree... There aren't many fencesitters at this point, so you don't really have to play nice so that some person who hasn't really thought about the issue will swing to one side or the other. This is more about reminding people why donations, lobbying efforts, and pressure on legislators is necessary.


So you're seeing this as being in similar spirit to DV awareness campaigns using pictures of battered women in their ads?  I can see that.
 
2014-03-19 12:10:26 PM  

factoryconnection: Theaetetus: I disagree... There aren't many fencesitters at this point, so you don't really have to play nice so that some person who hasn't really thought about the issue will swing to one side or the other. This is more about reminding people why donations, lobbying efforts, and pressure on legislators is necessary.

So you're seeing this as being in similar spirit to DV awareness campaigns using pictures of battered women in their ads?  I can see that.


Yeah, exactly. Or anti-smoking campaigns using cancerous lungs, or even anti-abortion campaigns using pictures of aborted fetuses. Outrage is a powerful motivator.
 
2014-03-19 12:11:11 PM  
Wire hangers?

 i253.photobucket.com

RUN FOR YOUR LIVES, SHE'S GONNA BLOW!
 
2014-03-19 12:17:46 PM  
www.howardbrown.org
 
2014-03-19 12:19:30 PM  
Back in the '80s, I got involved in a counter-protest group against Operation Rescue's attack on Atlanta's women's clinics. We used the coathanger with the "international no" circle-and-slash symbol on our fliers (one of my first uses of Pagemaker). I think that gets the point across better than just the coathanger.
 
2014-03-19 12:20:58 PM  
I was going to contribute when I thought that the DC Abortion Fund was going to be used to perform an abortion on Washington, DC.  Sadly, that is not the case.
 
2014-03-19 12:21:18 PM  
Okay, I guess it's up to me:

SUBBY: "Hero" tag busy at the moment keeping clinics safe for the women who visit?
 
2014-03-19 12:21:19 PM  
We also accept in-kind donations!  Donate an item we can auction at a fundraiser event -

Like....more coat hangers.....??
 
2014-03-19 12:21:23 PM  

Theaetetus: factoryconnection: 3. This has set the right wing blogs ablaze.  Can't say I blame 'em.

Considering that the right wing wants to ban abortion clinics so that women go back to the coat hanger, I blame them plenty. Bunch of farking hypocrites.


Well California made the coat hanger a legal option:



California Abortion Law Allows Non-Physician Clinicians To Perform First-Term Procedures
 
2014-03-19 12:22:00 PM  
Tasteless.  When you find yourself putting up billboards of dead fetuses, or handing out coathanger thank-yous, it's time to step back and reevaluate where your life went wrong.
 
2014-03-19 12:23:26 PM  
Or she could have the kid and put it up for adoption, but whatever.
 
2014-03-19 12:24:42 PM  
comps.fotosearch.com
 
2014-03-19 12:25:23 PM  

BigGrnEggGriller: Or she could have the kid and put it up for adoption, but whatever.


How many dozens of kids have you adopted?
 
2014-03-19 12:26:07 PM  
i178.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-19 12:26:15 PM  

Theaetetus: Yeah, exactly. Or anti-smoking campaigns using cancerous lungs, or even anti-abortion campaigns using pictures of aborted fetuses. Outrage is a powerful motivator.


I think the problem is that the right causes don't get stupid crazy often enough. If you could bottle that brash, loud, batshiat crazy rhetoric that so many people eat up and aim it toward a good cause or three, it'd be very interesting to see the results.
 
2014-03-19 12:26:45 PM  

blatz514: You probably haven't donated enough for the coat hanger necklace yet.  Right now, you're up to "sock her in the gut with a hammer falcon punch" level.


ftfy
 
2014-03-19 12:27:18 PM  

nmrsnr: Hey, the Christians made a cruel device of death into their symbol, so why not?


To be fair that was a one time deal sort of thing, and people don't get crucified anymore, whereas. . .
 
2014-03-19 12:27:30 PM  

factoryconnection: I googled "DC abortion fund" instead of clicking and sure enough:
1. It is legit; they raise money to help broke women pay for an abortion
2. Their "coat hanger pendant" is something they're actually giving to donors
3. This has set the right wing blogs ablaze.  Can't say I blame 'em.


Maybe if they sold "killin's all good 'til the baby crowns" T-shirts they could raise some more dough.

Theaetetus: There aren't many fencesitters at this point


You're kidding, right? How many people who profess to be pro-choice would stick to that position regardless of whether the pregnancy was 2 or 250 days along? And how many who purport to be pro-life put their money where their mouths are and use the rhythm method?

Maybe you'd get to ten percent of the population combining them both.
 
2014-03-19 12:27:39 PM  

Theaetetus: factoryconnection: 3. This has set the right wing blogs ablaze.  Can't say I blame 'em.

Considering that the right wing wants to ban abortion clinics so that women go back to the coat hanger, I blame them plenty. Bunch of farking hypocrites.


Why wouldn't the right wingers want to fund abortions to poor, presumed minority women? It seems that it would work in their favor seeing how they biatch about entitlements for poor, brown, welfare children and such. Bunch of farking hypocrites, indeed.
 
2014-03-19 12:28:05 PM  

BigGrnEggGriller: Or she could have the kid and put it up for adoption, but whatever.


Except she didn't abort a kid, she aborted what could have become a kid.
 
2014-03-19 12:28:13 PM  
Aside from whether or not this is a wise PR move, this looks like the most snag-prone piece of jewelry I have ever seen.
 
2014-03-19 12:29:54 PM  
Wow...never thought I'd get to reuse this one
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-19 12:30:11 PM  

Theaetetus: Rincewind53: I've donated to the DCAF. All I get from them is more and more letters begging for more money.

... you were hoping for some phone numbers?


I know that's why I do it. You just know they put out!
 
2014-03-19 12:31:45 PM  
Good.
 
2014-03-19 12:33:12 PM  
It's truth in advertising.  What's the problem?
 
2014-03-19 12:36:30 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: and people don't get crucified anymore


I dunno, man. I bet you could find a recent case.
 
2014-03-19 12:38:09 PM  
Yeah.  This is not a new thing, I know a few women who have them.  They're usually the true activists rather than just your average pro-choicer.  And frankly the people who will get outraged by the hangers are outraged by abortion (and probably the existence of vaginas).

The end result of making abortion illegal is that women will die in botched abortions, ruin their reproductive organs, or be forced to carry grossly deformed and/or nonviable fetuses to full term and watch while they die screaming in agony.
 
2014-03-19 12:40:21 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-19 12:40:33 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: To be fair that was a one time deal sort of thing, and people don't get crucified anymore


not with that attitude.
 
2014-03-19 12:40:58 PM  

hasty ambush: Well California made the coat hanger a legal option:

California Abortion Law Allows Non-Physician Clinicians To Perform First-Term Procedures


Or not at all what you said, whichever.
 
2014-03-19 12:41:51 PM  

probesport: [www.howardbrown.org image 398x312]


 first good chuckle of the day. thanks

I agree with some of the other folks here in saying that their current PR Campaign is in really poor taste.  I could not wear one of those pendants if I donated... it's just not right.
 
2014-03-19 12:42:44 PM  

nmrsnr: Hey, the Christians made a cruel device of death into their symbol, so why not?


Pro-Choice .. abortion .. coat hanger .. and somehow you came up with Christian.

Is that some sort of Obama Common Core math?
 
2014-03-19 12:50:24 PM  

special20: Theaetetus: factoryconnection: 3. This has set the right wing blogs ablaze.  Can't say I blame 'em.

Considering that the right wing wants to ban abortion clinics so that women go back to the coat hanger, I blame them plenty. Bunch of farking hypocrites.

Why wouldn't the right wingers want to fund abortions to poor, presumed minority women? It seems that it would work in their favor seeing how they biatch about entitlements for poor, brown, welfare children and such. Bunch of farking hypocrites, indeed.


Don't forget about the racism factor:  Abortion is a perfect tool for racists:


In N.Y.C., More Abortions Than Live Births For Black Women


In a report titled "Summary of Vital Statistics 2012, The City of New York," black women not only had the highest rate of abortions but they also topped the chart with the highest number of pregnancies and miscarriages as well, surpassing all other racial groups.

Whereas black women delivered 24,758 live births, Hispanic women produced over 10,000 more. White women in New York City, on the other hand, gave birth to the highest number of live babies at 39,112.

As far as pregnancy terminations, black children who were aborted comprised 42.4 percent of the total number of abortions in New York City. In 2012, out of 73,815 abortions in the city, 31,328 black babies were aborted.

Hispanic women came in second behind their black counterparts as far as abortions at 31 percent.

White women were at the tail end of the abortion chart with 9,704, or 13 percent who opted to have the procedure.

The statistics show the city's abortion rate dropped 8.6 percent from 2011, and it has decreased 19 percent since 2003 and 22 percent since 2000.

Asians and Pacific Islander women had the lowest number of abortions according to the data, with 4,493 recorded among the group.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-03-19 12:51:58 PM  
...or she could just not have unprotected sex. You know, take a little farking responsibility. But NOOOOO, that means that she couldn't relinquish said responsibility at will.

Just sayin...
 
2014-03-19 01:00:15 PM  

BigGrnEggGriller: Or she could have the kid and put it up for adoption, but whatever.


Yeah, because carrying a kid to term causes exactly the same medical expense, work disruption and health risks as a first-term abortion. Not to mention the mental trauma women suffer from giving kids up for adoption, which unlike "post-abortion syndrome," is a real medical condition.
 
2014-03-19 01:00:55 PM  

dpzum1: ...or she could just not have unprotected sex. You know, take a little farking responsibility. But NOOOOO, that means that she couldn't relinquish said responsibility at will.

Just sayin...


You would think so since clinics and many schools give out condoms for free but It is not about responsibility but authority/power without having to be responsible/face the consequences for its use.

They get to say who , when and how (except of course for rape)The chant is their body their business and keeping "our laws" off their bodies except when it comes to paying for the consequences of what they do with their body.  Then they are all about reaching into the tax payers or the alleged father's pocket. and damn you to hell for your "war on women" if you are not willing to part with that  money with no strings attached.
 
2014-03-19 01:01:32 PM  

dpzum1: ...or she could just not have unprotected sex. You know, take a little farking responsibility. But NOOOOO, that means that she couldn't relinquish said responsibility at will.

Just sayin...


You must live on a cool planet, that one where birth control is 100 percent effective.
 
2014-03-19 01:03:29 PM  

dpzum1: ...or she could just not have unprotected sex. You know, take a little farking responsibility. But NOOOOO, that means that she couldn't relinquish said responsibility at will.

Just sayin...


I don't know who "she" is, but maybe she realizes that it's a mistake to bring a child into the world that she can't afford. And she is probably well aware that birth control is not foolproof -- something that cannot necessarily be said of you.
 
2014-03-19 01:11:24 PM  

dpzum1: ...or she could just not have unprotected sex. You know, take a little farking responsibility. But NOOOOO, that means that she couldn't relinquish said responsibility at will.

Just sayin...


But don't you dare suggest the abortion issue is about controlling female sexuality.....
 
2014-03-19 01:11:38 PM  
I would LOVE one of those, but I can't in good faith donate to a cause which is dedicated to stopping the heart of a living being with unique human DNA, and physically appears to be a human being in miniature.
 
2014-03-19 01:11:58 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: nmrsnr: Hey, the Christians made a cruel device of death into their symbol, so why not?

Pro-Choice .. abortion .. coat hanger .. and somehow you came up with Christian.

Is that some sort of Obama Common Core math?


Christians use an execution method as their symbol.  Regular math works just fine on that one.
 
2014-03-19 01:17:11 PM  

mbillips: BigGrnEggGriller: Or she could have the kid and put it up for adoption, but whatever.

Yeah, because carrying a kid to term causes exactly the same medical expense, work disruption and health risks as a first-term abortion. Not to mention the mental trauma women suffer from giving kids up for adoption, which unlike "post-abortion syndrome," is a real medical condition.


..............sounds both inconvenient and potentially dangerous. I'm sure that women who've had an abortion have never given what might have been a second thought.

Lots of grey in this world. Perhaps more than 50 shades.
 
2014-03-19 01:17:46 PM  

Barbeaubot: Christians use an execution method as their symbol.  Regular math works just fine on that one.


Solve for 't'
 
2014-03-19 01:19:55 PM  

garandman1a: I would LOVE one of those, but I can't in good faith donate to a cause which is dedicated to stopping the heart of a living being with unique human DNA, and physically appears to be a human being in miniature.


Then don't. It's your money.
 
2014-03-19 01:21:15 PM  

nmrsnr: Hey, the Christians made a cruel device of death into their symbol, so why not?


I thought they opted for a new sigil?
upload.wikimedia.org

/willies proof
 
2014-03-19 01:29:06 PM  
hasty ambush: 
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 687x634]


As much as I'd love for that picture to be real, you might want to mention that it's 'Shopped.

img.fark.net
img.fark.net


Use this instead, it still gets our point across.
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-19 01:36:37 PM  

dpzum1: ...or she could just not have unprotected sex. You know, take a little farking responsibility. But NOOOOO, that means that she couldn't relinquish said responsibility at will.


I'm sorry... I must have missed that memo. Who appointed you universal arbiter of vaginas and by what authority was the title bestowed?
 
2014-03-19 01:39:37 PM  
If it was up to me we would have abortion drive thru's in every impoverished location in the country!! Here's the thing: stupid, poor people breed like rats. We have more than enough stupid, poor people in this country already.
Freakonomics had some interesting theories about the crime rate before and after abortion was legalized.
 
2014-03-19 01:40:20 PM  
Don't like the hanger pendant? Maybe an armed fetus Christmas ornament is more your speed.

http://boingboing.net/2007/12/04/unusual-christmas-tr.html
 
2014-03-19 01:41:19 PM  
One of our developers made a dialog popup for "Abort this function" have a coat hanger for an icon.     I thought it was pretty funny but demanded he remove that bitmap from the system lest it work its way into a released product.
 
2014-03-19 01:42:51 PM  
Seems to me they are utilizing the coat hanger as a symbolic reminder. Much like the gay rights movement adopted the pink triangle. The hanger to remind of that baning abortion, like prohibition of drugs/ alcohol, has not, will never truly stop the use it merely moves it underground. The pink triangle to remind us that Hitler murdered not just Jewish people but all he saw has "undesirable". Gays, gypsies, the handicapped, Ect.
Both are symbolic "Never Forgets" so to say.
 
2014-03-19 01:45:50 PM  
I feel very strongly about a woman's right to have an abortion if she chooses, but...o_O
 
2014-03-19 01:51:34 PM  

lindalouwho: I feel very strongly about a woman's right to have an abortion if she chooses, but...o_O


I don't think this is any different than the graphic billboards the pro-life people put up along the highway.
 
2014-03-19 02:00:25 PM  

mbillips: BigGrnEggGriller: Or she could have the kid and put it up for adoption, but whatever.

Yeah, because carrying a kid to term causes exactly the same medical expense, work disruption and health risks as a first-term abortion. Not to mention the mental trauma women suffer from giving kids up for adoption, which unlike "post-abortion syndrome," is a real medical condition.


Your newsletter, I'd like to subscribe.
 
2014-03-19 02:04:13 PM  

udhq: lindalouwho: I feel very strongly about a woman's right to have an abortion if she chooses, but...o_O

I don't think this is any different than the graphic billboards the pro-life people put up along the highway.


It's not any different from the graphic billboards. That's my point. And I am disappointed.
 
2014-03-19 02:07:30 PM  
saved4life.com

s3.amazonaws.com
 
2014-03-19 02:12:47 PM  

lindalouwho: udhq: lindalouwho: I feel very strongly about a woman's right to have an abortion if she chooses, but...o_O

I don't think this is any different than the graphic billboards the pro-life people put up along the highway.

It's not any different from the graphic billboards. That's my point. And I am disappointed.


A coat hanger is just as offensive to you as a picture of an aborted fetus?
You may need to talk to somebody about that.
 
2014-03-19 02:22:50 PM  

Saners: lindalouwho: udhq: lindalouwho: I feel very strongly about a woman's right to have an abortion if she chooses, but...o_O

I don't think this is any different than the graphic billboards the pro-life people put up along the highway.

It's not any different from the graphic billboards. That's my point. And I am disappointed.

A coat hanger is just as offensive to you as a picture of an aborted fetus?
You may need to talk to somebody about that.


Don't be obtuse.
 
2014-03-19 02:34:17 PM  

Gulper Eel: factoryconnection: I googled "DC abortion fund" instead of clicking and sure enough:
1. It is legit; they raise money to help broke women pay for an abortion
2. Their "coat hanger pendant" is something they're actually giving to donors
3. This has set the right wing blogs ablaze.  Can't say I blame 'em.

Maybe if they sold "killin's all good 'til the baby crowns" T-shirts they could raise some more dough.

Theaetetus: There aren't many fencesitters at this point

You're kidding, right? How many people who profess to be pro-choice would stick to that position regardless of whether the pregnancy was 2 or 250 days along? And how many who purport to be pro-life put their money where their mouths are and use the rhythm method?

Maybe you'd get to ten percent of the population combining them both.



Kind of this, although I'm not sure why you're lumping all pro-lifers in to the anti-contraception viewpoint.

In any case, I really hate when either side trivializes the issue.  The expense, risks, and imposition of pregnancy and childbirth should not be taken lightly, but neither should the life of the baby.
 
2014-03-19 02:37:03 PM  

DoctorWhat: In any case, I really hate when either side trivializes the issue.  The expense, risks, and imposition of pregnancy and childbirth should not be taken lightly, but neither should the life of the baby.


Good thing that there's no baby involved with abortion, then, huh?
 
2014-03-19 02:43:31 PM  

lindalouwho: Saners: lindalouwho: udhq: lindalouwho: I feel very strongly about a woman's right to have an abortion if she chooses, but...o_O

I don't think this is any different than the graphic billboards the pro-life people put up along the highway.

It's not any different from the graphic billboards. That's my point. And I am disappointed.

A coat hanger is just as offensive to you as a picture of an aborted fetus?
You may need to talk to somebody about that.

Don't be obtuse.


How is it obtuse to point out that showing a tool isn't the equivalent to showing the actual medical procedure.  To put it another way, would you consider a billboard with a photo of a scalpel to be the equivalent of a billboard with a closeup photo of open heart surgery being performed?
 
2014-03-19 02:44:41 PM  

Theaetetus: DoctorWhat: In any case, I really hate when either side trivializes the issue.  The expense, risks, and imposition of pregnancy and childbirth should not be taken lightly, but neither should the life of the baby.

Good thing that there's no baby involved with abortion, then, huh?


And at what gestational age would you say there is?  24 weeks is often used as a cutoff because of viability, but it isn't like a 24-weeker can live without major medical intervention; viability age is a produce of our technology.  A few babies have survived even earlier births, at which point they probably can't even feel pain yet.  What makes a baby?  If it's only time, then any cutoff you choose is arbitrary.
 
2014-03-19 02:46:33 PM  

DoctorWhat: Theaetetus: DoctorWhat: In any case, I really hate when either side trivializes the issue.  The expense, risks, and imposition of pregnancy and childbirth should not be taken lightly, but neither should the life of the baby.

Good thing that there's no baby involved with abortion, then, huh?

And at what gestational age would you say there is?


By definition, at no age during gestation. A baby is born. Prior to that, we're talking about a fetus, zygote, embryo, blastocyst, ovum, etc. depending on gestational age.
 
2014-03-19 02:53:33 PM  

Theaetetus: DoctorWhat: Theaetetus: DoctorWhat: In any case, I really hate when either side trivializes the issue.  The expense, risks, and imposition of pregnancy and childbirth should not be taken lightly, but neither should the life of the baby.

Good thing that there's no baby involved with abortion, then, huh?

And at what gestational age would you say there is?

By definition, at no age during gestation. A baby is born. Prior to that, we're talking about a fetus, zygote, embryo, blastocyst, ovum, etc. depending on gestational age.


Ah, so there is no issue with aborting a perfectly healthy fetus 39-weeks into the pregnancy?
 
2014-03-19 02:57:59 PM  
I will confess that I don't understand people that think like this.  I know it's the law and all, but at some level, you'd think basic humanity would kick in.
 
2014-03-19 02:58:25 PM  

CourtroomWolf: lindalouwho: Saners: lindalouwho: udhq: lindalouwho: I feel very strongly about a woman's right to have an abortion if she chooses, but...o_O

I don't think this is any different than the graphic billboards the pro-life people put up along the highway.

It's not any different from the graphic billboards. That's my point. And I am disappointed.

A coat hanger is just as offensive to you as a picture of an aborted fetus?
You may need to talk to somebody about that.

Don't be obtuse.

How is it obtuse to point out that showing a tool isn't the equivalent to showing the actual medical procedure.  To put it another way, would you consider a billboard with a photo of a scalpel to be the equivalent of a billboard with a closeup photo of open heart surgery being performed?


*sigh*

I'm simply expressing my disappointment with a pro-choice organization resorting to shock tactics like the anti-choice crowd. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
2014-03-19 02:59:36 PM  

DoctorWhat: Theaetetus: DoctorWhat: Theaetetus: DoctorWhat: In any case, I really hate when either side trivializes the issue.  The expense, risks, and imposition of pregnancy and childbirth should not be taken lightly, but neither should the life of the baby.

Good thing that there's no baby involved with abortion, then, huh?

And at what gestational age would you say there is?

By definition, at no age during gestation. A baby is born. Prior to that, we're talking about a fetus, zygote, embryo, blastocyst, ovum, etc. depending on gestational age.

Ah, so there is no issue with aborting a perfectly healthy fetus 39-weeks into the pregnancy?


Well, first, are you conceding that your statement regarding "babies" was using a false definition? I just want to make sure we finish one point before we jump to the next. Then, I'm happy to reply.
 
2014-03-19 03:01:53 PM  

lindalouwho: I'm simply expressing my disappointment with a pro-choice organization resorting to shock tactics like the anti-choice crowd. Nothing more, nothing less.


Well, yes, the truth is often very shocking.
 
2014-03-19 03:05:35 PM  

Theaetetus: DoctorWhat: Theaetetus: DoctorWhat: Theaetetus: DoctorWhat: In any case, I really hate when either side trivializes the issue.  The expense, risks, and imposition of pregnancy and childbirth should not be taken lightly, but neither should the life of the baby.

Good thing that there's no baby involved with abortion, then, huh?

And at what gestational age would you say there is?

By definition, at no age during gestation. A baby is born. Prior to that, we're talking about a fetus, zygote, embryo, blastocyst, ovum, etc. depending on gestational age.

Ah, so there is no issue with aborting a perfectly healthy fetus 39-weeks into the pregnancy?

Well, first, are you conceding that your statement regarding "babies" was using a false definition? I just want to make sure we finish one point before we jump to the next. Then, I'm happy to reply.


But that's just the issue.  Yes, the medical definition of the term revolves around being born or not, but that has been used by pro-choicers to make abortion seem like a non-issue.  "It's only a fetus, not a baby".  That's beside the point.
 
2014-03-19 03:06:52 PM  

DoctorWhat: Theaetetus: DoctorWhat: Theaetetus: DoctorWhat: Theaetetus: DoctorWhat: In any case, I really hate when either side trivializes the issue.  The expense, risks, and imposition of pregnancy and childbirth should not be taken lightly, but neither should the life of the baby.

Good thing that there's no baby involved with abortion, then, huh?

And at what gestational age would you say there is?

By definition, at no age during gestation. A baby is born. Prior to that, we're talking about a fetus, zygote, embryo, blastocyst, ovum, etc. depending on gestational age.

Ah, so there is no issue with aborting a perfectly healthy fetus 39-weeks into the pregnancy?

Well, first, are you conceding that your statement regarding "babies" was using a false definition? I just want to make sure we finish one point before we jump to the next. Then, I'm happy to reply.

But that's just the issue.  Yes, the medical definition of the term revolves around being born or not, but that has been used by pro-choicers to make abortion seem like a non-issue.  "It's only a fetus, not a baby".  That's beside the point.


I should say, used by some pro-choicers.
 
2014-03-19 03:09:56 PM  
A friend of mine and her husband have had difficulty conceiving. Several miscarriages. When that has happened it's not exactly like a baby in their family has died, but...............
 
2014-03-19 03:13:09 PM  

lindalouwho: I'm simply expressing my disappointment with a pro-choice organization resorting to shock tactics like the anti-choice crowd.


There's nothing wrong with using shock tactics to disarm complacent people and get them thinking about an important topic as long as it's not ALL you do. Not even when anti-choicers do it. The problem with those idiots standing around on curbs with pictures of bloody "babies" isn't that they're trying to shock people, it's that they're lying to people.
 
2014-03-19 03:18:47 PM  

skozlaw: lindalouwho: I'm simply expressing my disappointment with a pro-choice organization resorting to shock tactics like the anti-choice crowd.

There's nothing wrong with using shock tactics to disarm complacent people and get them thinking about an important topic as long as it's not ALL you do. Not even when anti-choicers do it. The problem with those idiots standing around on curbs with pictures of bloody "babies" isn't that they're trying to shock people, it's that they're lying to people.


Lying how?
 
2014-03-19 03:21:26 PM  

skozlaw: lindalouwho: I'm simply expressing my disappointment with a pro-choice organization resorting to shock tactics like the anti-choice crowd.

There's nothing wrong with using shock tactics to disarm complacent people and get them thinking about an important topic as long as it's not ALL you do. Not even when anti-choicers do it. The problem with those idiots standing around on curbs with pictures of bloody "babies" isn't that they're trying to shock people, it's that they're lying to people.


You're preaching to the choir ;-) I've been to DC many times protesting as a pro-choicer, including in the pre-Roe v Wade days.
I find it hard to wrap my mind around the fact that we STILL have to fight for the right. And I'm long past being able to get pregnant mysel.
 
2014-03-19 03:21:47 PM  

Fusilier: A friend of mine and her husband have had difficulty conceiving. Several miscarriages. When that has happened it's not exactly like a baby in their family has died, but...............


Yes.  This has been a big factor in making my viewpoints more nuanced.  My wife had a termination for medical reasons at 20 weeks gestation.  The thoughtlessly pro-life who heard about it thought we were monsters, and the thoughtlessly pro-choice didn't want to acknowledge our grief or that we considered our dead child to be part of our family.
 
2014-03-19 03:29:53 PM  

DoctorWhat: Fusilier: A friend of mine and her husband have had difficulty conceiving. Several miscarriages. When that has happened it's not exactly like a baby in their family has died, but...............

Yes.  This has been a big factor in making my viewpoints more nuanced.  My wife had a termination for medical reasons at 20 weeks gestation.  The thoughtlessly pro-life who heard about it thought we were monsters, and the thoughtlessly pro-choice didn't want to acknowledge our grief or that we considered our dead child to be part of our family.


I am so sorry for your loss. And I am sorry that you and your wife were treated like "an issue" instead of heartbroken human beings. Stay strong.
 
2014-03-19 03:32:33 PM  

DoctorWhat: Theaetetus: DoctorWhat: Theaetetus: DoctorWhat: Theaetetus: DoctorWhat: In any case, I really hate when either side trivializes the issue.  The expense, risks, and imposition of pregnancy and childbirth should not be taken lightly, but neither should the life of the baby.

Good thing that there's no baby involved with abortion, then, huh?

And at what gestational age would you say there is?

By definition, at no age during gestation. A baby is born. Prior to that, we're talking about a fetus, zygote, embryo, blastocyst, ovum, etc. depending on gestational age.

Ah, so there is no issue with aborting a perfectly healthy fetus 39-weeks into the pregnancy?

Well, first, are you conceding that your statement regarding "babies" was using a false definition? I just want to make sure we finish one point before we jump to the next. Then, I'm happy to reply.

But that's just the issue.  Yes, the medical definition of the term revolves around being born or not, but that has been used by pro-choicers to make abortion seem like a non-issue.  "It's only a fetus, not a baby".  That's beside the point.


In the same way, the term "baby" has been used by anti-choicers to make abortion seem like infantcide, when it's clearly not.

And also, that's a different issue than your second question about "aborting a perfectly healthy fetus 39-weeks into the pregnancy".  As I said, I'm happy to discuss that with you, but first we have to get away from your insistence on medically incorrect and emotionally burdened language.
 
2014-03-19 03:44:23 PM  

Theaetetus: DoctorWhat: Theaetetus: DoctorWhat: Theaetetus: DoctorWhat: Theaetetus: DoctorWhat: In any case, I really hate when either side trivializes the issue.  The expense, risks, and imposition of pregnancy and childbirth should not be taken lightly, but neither should the life of the baby.

Good thing that there's no baby involved with abortion, then, huh?

And at what gestational age would you say there is?

By definition, at no age during gestation. A baby is born. Prior to that, we're talking about a fetus, zygote, embryo, blastocyst, ovum, etc. depending on gestational age.

Ah, so there is no issue with aborting a perfectly healthy fetus 39-weeks into the pregnancy?

Well, first, are you conceding that your statement regarding "babies" was using a false definition? I just want to make sure we finish one point before we jump to the next. Then, I'm happy to reply.

But that's just the issue.  Yes, the medical definition of the term revolves around being born or not, but that has been used by pro-choicers to make abortion seem like a non-issue.  "It's only a fetus, not a baby".  That's beside the point.

In the same way, the term "baby" has been used by anti-choicers to make abortion seem like infantcide, when it's clearly not.

And also, that's a different issue than your second question about "aborting a perfectly healthy fetus 39-weeks into the pregnancy".  As I said, I'm happy to discuss that with you, but first we have to get away from your insistence on medically incorrect and emotionally burdened language.


So, in other words, you want to define the language and discussion points in your favor before you'll bless us with your permission to continue the discussion.

Got it.
 
2014-03-19 03:59:39 PM  
farm8.staticflickr.com
 
msP
2014-03-19 03:59:41 PM  

hasty ambush: dpzum1: ...or she could just not have unprotected sex. You know, take a little farking responsibility. But NOOOOO, that means that she couldn't relinquish said responsibility at will.

Just sayin...

You would think so since clinics and many schools give out condoms for free but It is not about responsibility but authority/power without having to be responsible/face the consequences for its use.

They get to say who , when and how (except of course for rape)The chant is their body their business and keeping "our laws" off their bodies except when it comes to paying for the consequences of what they do with their body.  Then they are all about reaching into the tax payers or the alleged father's pocket. and damn you to hell for your "war on women" if you are not willing to part with that  money with no strings attached.


So what about when their chosen form of birth control fails? (Not counting the "rhythm method")? No abortions for them because of a completely uncontrollable hormonal reaction or the tiniest hole in one of those free school condoms?
 
2014-03-19 04:02:06 PM  

BigGrnEggGriller: Lying how?


Lie:
2.bp.blogspot.com

Lie:
24.media.tumblr.com

Lie:
www.jillstanek.com

Lie:
www.prolifedepot.com

Liars:
www.intouchmission.org

Sufficient?
 
2014-03-19 04:05:01 PM  

mbillips: dpzum1: ...or she could just not have unprotected sex. You know, take a little farking responsibility. But NOOOOO, that means that she couldn't relinquish said responsibility at will.

Just sayin...

You must live on a cool planet, that one where birth control is 100 percent effective.


So no one should ever use it?
 
2014-03-19 04:06:07 PM  

DoctorWhat: Fusilier: A friend of mine and her husband have had difficulty conceiving. Several miscarriages. When that has happened it's not exactly like a baby in their family has died, but...............

Yes.  This has been a big factor in making my viewpoints more nuanced.  My wife had a termination for medical reasons at 20 weeks gestation.  The thoughtlessly pro-life who heard about it thought we were monsters, and the thoughtlessly pro-choice didn't want to acknowledge our grief or that we considered our dead child to be part of our family.


The distinction, however, is not the  age of the fetus, but the desire of the mother to  have the baby. This is why there can be such things as abortion as well as fetal homicide statutes.

It's also why any questions about late term abortions - including  your question about abortion of 39-week fetuses - are both inapposite and heartless. No one- I repeat, no one- has an abortion in the third trimester "for convenience" or because they changed their mind. Doctors won't do them, and they're illegal in most states.  Rather, as you know, they're done in cases where the motherwants to have the baby, but can't, for medical reasons.

Accordingly, arguments about abortion in the first or second trimester that hang on emotional pleas regarding late term abortions are simply cruel.
 
2014-03-19 04:07:08 PM  

BigGrnEggGriller: Theaetetus: DoctorWhat: Theaetetus: DoctorWhat: Theaetetus: DoctorWhat: Theaetetus: DoctorWhat: In any case, I really hate when either side trivializes the issue.  The expense, risks, and imposition of pregnancy and childbirth should not be taken lightly, but neither should the life of the baby.

Good thing that there's no baby involved with abortion, then, huh?

And at what gestational age would you say there is?

By definition, at no age during gestation. A baby is born. Prior to that, we're talking about a fetus, zygote, embryo, blastocyst, ovum, etc. depending on gestational age.

Ah, so there is no issue with aborting a perfectly healthy fetus 39-weeks into the pregnancy?

Well, first, are you conceding that your statement regarding "babies" was using a false definition? I just want to make sure we finish one point before we jump to the next. Then, I'm happy to reply.

But that's just the issue.  Yes, the medical definition of the term revolves around being born or not, but that has been used by pro-choicers to make abortion seem like a non-issue.  "It's only a fetus, not a baby".  That's beside the point.

In the same way, the term "baby" has been used by anti-choicers to make abortion seem like infantcide, when it's clearly not.

And also, that's a different issue than your second question about "aborting a perfectly healthy fetus 39-weeks into the pregnancy".  As I said, I'm happy to discuss that with you, but first we have to get away from your insistence on medically incorrect and emotionally burdened language.

So, in other words, you want to define the language and discussion points in your favor before you'll bless us with your permission to continue the discussion.

Got it.


I'm using the medical definition, not one I came up with. If you want to redefine the word "baby" to mean anything pre-birth, then  you have to justify it, Sparky.
 
2014-03-19 04:07:19 PM  

skozlaw: BigGrnEggGriller: Lying how?

Lie:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 850x633]

Lie:
[24.media.tumblr.com image 500x331]

Lie:
[www.jillstanek.com image 850x296]

Lie:
[www.prolifedepot.com image 252x252]

Liars:
[www.intouchmission.org image 360x480]

Sufficient?


I see.  So calling it a "baby" is a lie in your eyes.

My guess is that you'd rather call it a "cell cluster" until it's been out of the womb for a year
 
2014-03-19 04:09:54 PM  

BigGrnEggGriller: So calling it a "baby" is a lie in your eyes contrary to the definition of the word "baby".

My guess is that you'd rather call it a "cell cluster" until it's been out of the womb for  a year an instant.


FTFY. Is that really so hard to understand?

/and "fetus" is the appropriate term at that age of gestation. "Cell cluster" is really only appropriate during the blastocyst stage.
 
msP
2014-03-19 04:14:30 PM  

garandman1a: I would LOVE one of those, but I can't in good faith donate to a cause which is dedicated to stopping the heart of a living being with unique human DNA, and physically appears to be a human being in miniature.


s30.postimg.org

Which does the thing in the top left look more like to you? Because I would say it looks a lot less like a "human being in miniature" than it does a T-rex fetus.

Also, there's no argument that "thing" is living when it's barely even formed skin to cover its organs.
 
2014-03-19 04:17:29 PM  

BigGrnEggGriller: My guess...


What does you guess have to do with anything? The issue is well-studied, documented and cited. If your knowledge of the facts isn't what you're going to put on the table, your thoughts on the matter are irrelevant. Your guess has no place in anybody's professional medical care.
 
2014-03-19 04:23:38 PM  
I...i want to donate.
 
2014-03-19 04:29:44 PM  

DoctorWhat: Yes. This has been a big factor in making my viewpoints more nuanced. My wife had a termination for medical reasons at 20 weeks gestation. The thoughtlessly pro-life who heard about it thought we were monsters, and the thoughtlessly pro-choice didn't want to acknowledge our grief or that we considered our dead child to be part of our family.


Yeah, one of the things that sucks about the whole battle is that the truthful, compassionate nuances get swallowed up in partisan tumult. Women view their unborn children differently, have different amounts of attachment to them, and grieve differently (or not at all) when pregnancies are miscarried or aborted - this variance, too, is part of free choice. I hate it when the experiences of women are minimized because they don't neatly fit one side of the political narrative.

I'm really really pro-choice. I've had an abortion myself and don't have lingering emotions about it. But I do know women for whom abortion was an emotional sucker-punch, and while they aren't in the majority, glossing over their experiences in fear that the pro-lifers will use them to score points does nobody any favors.
 
2014-03-19 04:31:03 PM  

Theaetetus: BigGrnEggGriller: So calling it a "baby" is a lie in your eyes contrary to the definition of the word "baby".

My guess is that you'd rather call it a "cell cluster" until it's been out of the womb for  a year an instant.

FTFY. Is that really so hard to understand?

/and "fetus" is the appropriate term at that age of gestation. "Cell cluster" is really only appropriate during the blastocyst stage.


I guess as a person of faith, I cringe at funneling everything down to clinical definition, but you have every right to use it to shore up your argument in courts, etc.

When my wife suffered a couple of miscarriages during our first attempts at having children, I guess it meant more to us than losing a blastocyst.  We ached like we'd lost something more than that.  i guess you can blame our humanity and faith.

So anyway, I respect your right to express your view.  You have my best wishes.
 
2014-03-19 04:38:41 PM  
Donated. Window seat please, I'm giving the pendant to a friend as a gift.
 
2014-03-19 04:41:21 PM  

skozlaw: BigGrnEggGriller: My guess...

What does you guess have to do with anything? The issue is well-studied, documented and cited. If your knowledge of the facts isn't what you're going to put on the table, your thoughts on the matter are irrelevant. Your guess has no place in anybody's professional medical care.


I only wish God's blessings on you and yours.
 
2014-03-19 04:44:31 PM  

BigGrnEggGriller: Theaetetus: BigGrnEggGriller: So calling it a "baby" is a lie in your eyes contrary to the definition of the word "baby".

My guess is that you'd rather call it a "cell cluster" until it's been out of the womb for  a year an instant.

FTFY. Is that really so hard to understand?

/and "fetus" is the appropriate term at that age of gestation. "Cell cluster" is really only appropriate during the blastocyst stage.

I guess as a person of faith, I cringe at funneling everything down to clinical definition, but you have every right to use it to shore up your argument in courts, etc.

When my wife suffered a couple of miscarriages during our first attempts at having children, I guess it meant more to us than losing a blastocyst.  We ached like we'd lost something more than that.  i guess you can blame our humanity and faith.


Perhaps you should go and read my other post about how the distinction is not the age of the fetus, but the desire of the mother to have the child, then, and stop with the passive-aggressiveness.
 
2014-03-19 04:49:38 PM  

BigGrnEggGriller: skozlaw: BigGrnEggGriller: My guess...

What does you guess have to do with anything? The issue is well-studied, documented and cited. If your knowledge of the facts isn't what you're going to put on the table, your thoughts on the matter are irrelevant. Your guess has no place in anybody's professional medical care.

I only wish God's blessings on you and yours.


Tries to put words in someone's mouth, "blesses" them when called on it...
comicsidontunderstand.com
 
2014-03-19 04:51:21 PM  

Theaetetus: BigGrnEggGriller: Theaetetus: BigGrnEggGriller: So calling it a "baby" is a lie in your eyes contrary to the definition of the word "baby".

My guess is that you'd rather call it a "cell cluster" until it's been out of the womb for  a year an instant.

FTFY. Is that really so hard to understand?

/and "fetus" is the appropriate term at that age of gestation. "Cell cluster" is really only appropriate during the blastocyst stage.

I guess as a person of faith, I cringe at funneling everything down to clinical definition, but you have every right to use it to shore up your argument in courts, etc.

When my wife suffered a couple of miscarriages during our first attempts at having children, I guess it meant more to us than losing a blastocyst.  We ached like we'd lost something more than that.  i guess you can blame our humanity and faith.

Perhaps you should go and read my other post about how the distinction is not the age of the fetus, but the desire of the mother to have the child, then, and stop with the passive-aggressiveness.


Well, aren't you unpleasant?  I certainly hope I have the good fortune of not encountering you in the meat world.

Best wishes, anyway.
 
2014-03-19 05:06:26 PM  

BigGrnEggGriller: Theaetetus: BigGrnEggGriller: Theaetetus: BigGrnEggGriller: So calling it a "baby" is a lie in your eyes contrary to the definition of the word "baby".

My guess is that you'd rather call it a "cell cluster" until it's been out of the womb for  a year an instant.

FTFY. Is that really so hard to understand?

/and "fetus" is the appropriate term at that age of gestation. "Cell cluster" is really only appropriate during the blastocyst stage.

I guess as a person of faith, I cringe at funneling everything down to clinical definition, but you have every right to use it to shore up your argument in courts, etc.

When my wife suffered a couple of miscarriages during our first attempts at having children, I guess it meant more to us than losing a blastocyst.  We ached like we'd lost something more than that.  i guess you can blame our humanity and faith.

Perhaps you should go and read my other post about how the distinction is not the age of the fetus, but the desire of the mother to have the child, then, and stop with the passive-aggressiveness.

Well, aren't you unpleasant?  I certainly hope I have the good fortune of not encountering you in the meat world.

Best wishes, anyway.


Likewise. Frankly, I'd rather hang out with real Christians who don't accuse everyone who disagrees with them of lacking humanity. Cheers.
 
2014-03-19 08:18:50 PM  

msP: hasty ambush: dpzum1: ...or she could just not have unprotected sex. You know, take a little farking responsibility. But NOOOOO, that means that she couldn't relinquish said responsibility at will.

Just sayin...

You would think so since clinics and many schools give out condoms for free but It is not about responsibility but authority/power without having to be responsible/face the consequences for its use.

They get to say who , when and how (except of course for rape)The chant is their body their business and keeping "our laws" off their bodies except when it comes to paying for the consequences of what they do with their body.  Then they are all about reaching into the tax payers or the alleged father's pocket. and damn you to hell for your "war on women" if you are not willing to part with that  money with no strings attached.

So what about when their chosen form of birth control fails? (Not counting the "rhythm method")? No abortions for them because of a completely uncontrollable hormonal reaction or the tiniest hole in one of those free school condoms?


I guess teh question woudl be then who has to pay for it.  Seems they assume the risks they assume the responsibility. I knwo that goes contrary  to modern feminism where they want  the financial responsibility spread around
 
2014-03-19 08:21:34 PM  
farm4.staticflickr.com
 
msP
2014-03-19 09:28:20 PM  

hasty ambush: msP: hasty ambush: dpzum1: ...or she could just not have unprotected sex. You know, take a little farking responsibility. But NOOOOO, that means that she couldn't relinquish said responsibility at will.

Just sayin...

You would think so since clinics and many schools give out condoms for free but It is not about responsibility but authority/power without having to be responsible/face the consequences for its use.

They get to say who , when and how (except of course for rape)The chant is their body their business and keeping "our laws" off their bodies except when it comes to paying for the consequences of what they do with their body.  Then they are all about reaching into the tax payers or the alleged father's pocket. and damn you to hell for your "war on women" if you are not willing to part with that  money with no strings attached.

So what about when their chosen form of birth control fails? (Not counting the "rhythm method")? No abortions for them because of a completely uncontrollable hormonal reaction or the tiniest hole in one of those free school condoms?

I guess teh question woudl be then who has to pay for it.  Seems they assume the risks they assume the responsibility. I knwo that goes contrary  to modern feminism where they want  the financial responsibility spread around


I don't think that's true at all. Since the time I could save money, I've always had an extra $500 in my own personal abortion fund (average cost of a medical abortion in Fla). I'm fully prepared at any moment to get an abortion - but I also spend $100 a month on my virtually impossible to fail birth control. When it doubled in cost after the ACA kicked in (from $50), I cut back on expenses to make sure I could still afford it. And I think there are a lot of women out there like me.

By the way, I consider myself part of the new feminist movement.
 
2014-03-20 12:32:05 AM  
Goddam, you guys, can't you step back for a second and figure out that this is just a tasteless joke -- and there's nothing wrong with that, tasteless humor being the center of most American comedy. You quivering nancies don't like it, clutch your pearls and look away before you faint.

Captain Dan: Tasteless.  When you find yourself putting up billboards of dead fetuses, or handing out coathanger thank-yous, it's time to step back and reevaluate where your life went wrong.


One person gets it, but still wears his SRS BZNZ face. Get over yourselves, some people appreciate a little black humor and plenty would wear it just to tweak people. Not everything has to help, especially not when an issue has been kicked around so long that today's grandparents fought to legalize it.
 
2014-03-20 09:34:53 AM  

BigGrnEggGriller: I see.  So calling it a "baby" is a lie in your eyes. My guess is that you'd rather call it a "cell cluster" until it's been out of the womb for a year


Like Pro-lifers give a shiat about the kid once it is out of the womb.
 
Displayed 116 of 116 comments

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