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.

(The Raw Story)   Feminist woman says she doesn't want to have children. Twitter responds in expected fashion   (rawstory.com) divider line 357
    More: Obvious, Twitter, feminists, photo archive, bad faith, abortion debate, fashions  
•       •       •

10574 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2014 at 1:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-19 02:59:30 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Quite honestly, your statement makes me a little angry. Like you're implying that all women must have children for the good of the country or something.


I think you are spot on here.  I've gotten this line before too, "But what if the baby you never plan on having was going to be the next Einstein?"  They pretend like it's a compliment ("You are good enough to create the next Einstein") but really the implication is that you should be having kids for the good of the country/world/universe and if you don't then you are selfish.
 
2014-03-19 02:59:36 PM  
I only skimmed the first few comments that she is whining about.  But I saw mostly comments criticizing her choice of words describing children as "time sucking monsters", not her personal life choices.  In other words people would like this author to stop attacking everyone else's choices.   This author seems to have a very bad case of "stop liking what I don't like."
 
2014-03-19 03:01:28 PM  

Ned Stark: I don't believe in property but if I started carrying an e z boy out of the furniture store I bet you wouldn't have a problem with it when a bunch of cops beat my ass to stop me.


Actually, I would have a problem with cops beating your ass for stealing something. I don't much like cops overreacting to a situation.

Further, we KNOW property exists. It's a fact. It's coded into the law that you cannot go into the furniture store and walk out with a chair.

We do not KNOW when life starts - it varies by theory. However, it is coded into the law that abortion is a legal medical procedure a woman can obtain if she so wishes - even validated by the Supreme Court.

As such, your analogy fails on multiple levels.
 
2014-03-19 03:01:39 PM  

genner: DArque Bishop: the ha ha guy: GanjSmokr: "The official line of anti-choicers..."

I'm pro-choice, but saying "pro-lifers" are "anti-choicers" is about as stupid as saying "pro-choicers" are "anti-lifers".

Pro-choice = "It's your choice to terminate the pregnancy."
Pro-life = "Your pregnancy must be maintained at all costs."
Anti-choice = "You don't have a choice, you must have children or you're a failure as a human being."

Anti-life =

[img.fark.net image 400x300]

Both terms are propaganda. We should just call them pro-aboriton and and anti-abortion.


I'm down wit dat.
 
2014-03-19 03:01:49 PM  

ginandbacon: Satan's Bunny Slippers: People_are_Idiots: hm, might point this out. Without children, we won't have a healthy society of smart people. Idiocracy in action.

Please explain to me why this factors into a woman's choice to have or not have kids?  Not one person in here has said "no women should have children".

Quite honestly, your statement makes me a little angry.  Like you're implying that all women must have children for the good of the country or something.

Now, I'll hold off on my opinion of your statement until I get clarification.  But it still raises the hackles.

You're nicer than I am.


I thought I'd give them a chance.  I'm not really nicer than you.  :)
 
2014-03-19 03:03:31 PM  

verbaltoxin: Argumentum ad populum. Really? Because some people are squicked out by it and their church says no, then it's not birth control?


No, it's not birth control because even the pro-choice side realizes that trying to claim abortion as birth control is stupid and would quickly lose them any moral high ground they had.
 
2014-03-19 03:05:23 PM  

People_are_Idiots: Uhm, might point this out. Without children, we won't have a healthy society of smart people. Idiocracy in action.


As someone who *really* doesn't want children, this old chestnut is tiresome and ineffective. I have, what, 30 years left at most... after that, I couldn't care less what happens to society.

I do suspect, though, that "smart people" are going to be valued less and less over time anyway. That's one of many reasons why I don't want children -- I would feel guilty about leaving them with a future that I don't have faith in.
 
2014-03-19 03:05:23 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: ginandbacon: Satan's Bunny Slippers: People_are_Idiots: hm, might point this out. Without children, we won't have a healthy society of smart people. Idiocracy in action.

Please explain to me why this factors into a woman's choice to have or not have kids?  Not one person in here has said "no women should have children".

Quite honestly, your statement makes me a little angry.  Like you're implying that all women must have children for the good of the country or something.

Now, I'll hold off on my opinion of your statement until I get clarification.  But it still raises the hackles.

You're nicer than I am.

I thought I'd give them a chance.  I'm not really nicer than you.  :)


Well you type nicer than I do :)

And now you're a nice cheery green.
 
2014-03-19 03:07:33 PM  

Pincy: Satan's Bunny Slippers: Quite honestly, your statement makes me a little angry. Like you're implying that all women must have children for the good of the country or something.

I think you are spot on here.  I've gotten this line before too, "But what if the baby you never plan on having was going to be the next Einstein?"  They pretend like it's a compliment ("You are good enough to create the next Einstein") but really the implication is that you should be having kids for the good of the country/world/universe and if you don't then you are selfish.


OH yes.....I'm thankfully past the age that I get comments anymore, but I spent 25+ years getting the whole gamut of the cranks.

But you'd be a GREAT MOM! (yeah, sure.....I like to get drunk on friday nights too)

How do you know you don't want kids if you never had one?  (I've NEVER understood this one)

Aw...they're different when their your own!  (sure they are...I can't send them back home with their parents when I get tired of them)

I just don't understand WHY you don't want kids!  (no, no you don't and I'm not going to tell you)

But if you had kids, yours and ours could play together!  (like I want my brats hanging out with your brats?)

etc ad nauseum.....

I don't have kids.  I don't regret this.  Others have lovely families, great kids.  I have nothing against that.  but don't you DARE try to tell me I have to have kids "for the good of ANYTHING" because I will tell you to get farked.
 
2014-03-19 03:08:00 PM  

TheKingOfMexico: I have, what, 30 years left at most... after that, I couldn't care less what happens to society.



And that's why we all live in a septic tank Charlie Brown.  :  )  Nobody else does, either.
 
2014-03-19 03:08:35 PM  

reprobate1125: I'm definitely not trying to sound all self-righteous because my job sounds a lot better than I personally am, but I've dedicated my life to building orphanages and clinics around the world and that would be extremely difficult to do if I had kids. Notice that I didn't say impossibly, but I've chosen to (some would say sacrifice) by not having kids of my own be able to help a lot more kids.


You monster!
 
2014-03-19 03:08:35 PM  

serpent_sky: Ned Stark: I don't believe in property but if I started carrying an e z boy out of the furniture store I bet you wouldn't have a problem with it when a bunch of cops beat my ass to stop me.

Actually, I would have a problem with cops beating your ass for stealing something. I don't much like cops overreacting to a situation.

Further, we KNOW property exists. It's a fact. It's coded into the law that you cannot go into the furniture store and walk out with a chair.

We do not KNOW when life starts - it varies by theory. However, it is coded into the law that abortion is a legal medical procedure a woman can obtain if she so wishes - even validated by the Supreme Court.

As such, your analogy fails on multiple levels.


Overreacting? You underestimate my determination for cozy seating good sir!

Also, appealing to the status quo is not much of a point when arguing what the law should be. In a parallel universe where everything had gone the other way would you be pro-life cause the court sez so?
 
2014-03-19 03:09:54 PM  
if you don't have kids then you lose at evolution. But hey, if you'd rather the world be populated by bible thumpers then knock yourself out. Just don't complain when the world is populated by bible thumpers. I won't judge you for not having kids, but I will when you start whining.
 
2014-03-19 03:10:18 PM  

CanisNoir: Umm, not wanting someone to murder another human being as a form of "birth control" isn't exactly a moral hang up so much as just common decency.


That a fetus is a human being is your belief, and yours alone, and it is not supported by ANY science on the matter.  It is merely a point of dogma, and shouldn't be used as a pretext to strip the basic human rights from someone who does not accept it as such.

To believe so, you also must believe that a woman who chooses to have sex surrenders the very ownership of her body to the government for the gestational period.
 
2014-03-19 03:11:05 PM  
ginandbacon:

And now you're a nice cheery green.

Well thank you!  I have had you in a nice blue for a while, for "thoughtful and well thought out" posts.

(yes...I have a color coded system here.....*sigh*)
 
2014-03-19 03:14:39 PM  

MadMattressMack: if you don't have kids then you lose at evolution. But hey, if you'd rather the world be populated by bible thumpers then knock yourself out. Just don't complain when the world is populated by bible thumpers. I won't judge you for not having kids, but I will when you start whining.


You can't complain about the state of things if you don't have children? Fark yeah man. You run with that.
 
2014-03-19 03:15:09 PM  
At the risk of peeing in the petunias of the diverse and oft highly gymnastic and overwrought opinions on this lofty matter, uh, isn't it pretty much piss easy NOT to get knocked up if you don't want to?  I mean, I think we're past the coca cola douche and rosary stage for contraception.  Shouldn't this be a go to BEFORE one trundles off to get their very own abortion story?  And skip "but z0mg teh rape victims" rant.  This isn't about.  Plainly.
 
2014-03-19 03:16:37 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: ginandbacon:

And now you're a nice cheery green.

Well thank you!  I have had you in a nice blue for a while, for "thoughtful and well thought out" posts.

(yes...I have a color coded system here.....*sigh*)


Aw! That's really generous of you. I'm bad at remembering to favorite people--I just forget to do it. But it is easier now with the little star up there.
 
2014-03-19 03:17:31 PM  

udhq: CanisNoir: Umm, not wanting someone to murder another human being as a form of "birth control" isn't exactly a moral hang up so much as just common decency.

That a fetus is a human being is your belief, and yours alone, and it is not supported by ANY science on the matter.  It is merely a point of dogma, and shouldn't be used as a pretext to strip the basic human rights from someone who does not accept it as such.

To believe so, you also must believe that a woman who chooses to have sex surrenders the very ownership of her body to the government for the gestational period.


I'd agree with you to a point. You can't have an abortion at 8 months and 29 days because you decided you don't want it. I'm against abortion of viable fetuses outside of health concerns for the mother and / or fetus.
 
2014-03-19 03:19:20 PM  

serpent_sky: Why does that "right around half" get to say what the rest of us should do if we happen to get pregnant? Those of us who do not think a fetus is killing a human being?


Because we have long established that the government *can* control what we do with our bodies, (see drug and suicide laws) and when it comes to decided laws, people having a "say" is how our Representative Republic works.
 
2014-03-19 03:19:43 PM  

Wasilla Hillbilly: MadMattressMack: if you don't have kids then you lose at evolution. But hey, if you'd rather the world be populated by bible thumpers then knock yourself out. Just don't complain when the world is populated by bible thumpers. I won't judge you for not having kids, but I will when you start whining.

You can't complain about the state of things if you don't have children? Fark yeah man. You run with that.


I didn't say you can't complain. I said I reserve the right to judge your position based on your actions.
 
2014-03-19 03:21:05 PM  

MadMattressMack: udhq: CanisNoir: Umm, not wanting someone to murder another human being as a form of "birth control" isn't exactly a moral hang up so much as just common decency.

That a fetus is a human being is your belief, and yours alone, and it is not supported by ANY science on the matter.  It is merely a point of dogma, and shouldn't be used as a pretext to strip the basic human rights from someone who does not accept it as such.

To believe so, you also must believe that a woman who chooses to have sex surrenders the very ownership of her body to the government for the gestational period.

I'd agree with you to a point. You can't have an abortion at 8 months and 29 days because you decided you don't want it. I'm against abortion of viable fetuses outside of health concerns for the mother and / or fetus.


Give me examples of women doing this.
 
2014-03-19 03:23:24 PM  

bunner: At the risk of peeing in the petunias of the diverse and oft highly gymnastic and overwrought opinions on this lofty matter, uh, isn't it pretty much piss easy NOT to get knocked up if you don't want to?  I mean, I think we're past the coca cola douche and rosary stage for contraception.  Shouldn't this be a go to BEFORE one trundles off to get their very own abortion story?  And skip "but z0mg teh rape victims" rant.  This isn't about.  Plainly.


Bun, you know this.  Even diligent use of birth control fails.  Condoms break.  Pills fail, conception occurs, IUDs shift, not everyone is good with Norplant (as in allergic, and some insurances don't cover it anyway). Some women don't want to use the pill due to cancer risks.

So if birth control fails, which IS what the article referenced...that if her birth control failed and she got pregnant, she would have no issue with an abortion, a woman should have a child she took active steps to prevent?  And don't walk down that tubal ligation road, because no 20 something that's sexually active is going to have a tubal so she doesn't conceive. Or should women be coerced into using a drug they don't want to to satisfy some pearl clutching anti abortionist?

So what should they do?
 
2014-03-19 03:23:44 PM  

Nabb1: After reading that article, I think she is making the right call because she comes off as way too self-absorbed to be a parent.


Then the species is being done a favour and third parties should be pleased.

Frankly, given the quality of the parenting I've seen in my life, I wish more people would emulate her choice. Then I wouldn't have to work so hard on this super-virus.
 
2014-03-19 03:25:59 PM  

MadMattressMack: udhq: CanisNoir: Umm, not wanting someone to murder another human being as a form of "birth control" isn't exactly a moral hang up so much as just common decency.

That a fetus is a human being is your belief, and yours alone, and it is not supported by ANY science on the matter.  It is merely a point of dogma, and shouldn't be used as a pretext to strip the basic human rights from someone who does not accept it as such.

To believe so, you also must believe that a woman who chooses to have sex surrenders the very ownership of her body to the government for the gestational period.

I'd agree with you to a point. You can't have an abortion at 8 months and 29 days because you decided you don't want it. I'm against abortion of viable fetuses outside of health concerns for the mother and / or fetus.


Abortions are not performed past the second trimester except in extreme medical cases.  So stop making up weird scenarios.
 
2014-03-19 03:26:07 PM  

ginandbacon: MadMattressMack: udhq: CanisNoir: Umm, not wanting someone to murder another human being as a form of "birth control" isn't exactly a moral hang up so much as just common decency.

That a fetus is a human being is your belief, and yours alone, and it is not supported by ANY science on the matter.  It is merely a point of dogma, and shouldn't be used as a pretext to strip the basic human rights from someone who does not accept it as such.

To believe so, you also must believe that a woman who chooses to have sex surrenders the very ownership of her body to the government for the gestational period.

I'd agree with you to a point. You can't have an abortion at 8 months and 29 days because you decided you don't want it. I'm against abortion of viable fetuses outside of health concerns for the mother and / or fetus.

Give me examples of women doing this.


I can't nor do I care to look up a case. But to believe it wouldn't happen is naive.
 
2014-03-19 03:27:21 PM  

udhq: To believe so, you also must believe that a woman who chooses to have sex surrenders the very ownership of her body to the government for the gestational period.


No, but I believe she is placing herself in that risk. Having unprotected sex drastically increases the odds one will get pregnant, don't like those odds, you know how to change the equation. We *should* be able to control our baser instincts no? So use some brains, think about the consequences of your actions and then act in a manner that decreases the odds of an unwanted outcome; really it's not that hard. If it means holding off sex for a day or so, I think you'll survive.
 
2014-03-19 03:27:26 PM  
I hate to do this to you all, but unfortunately someone has to tell you:

Self awareness that you are self absorbed, and be able to communicate it to breeders asking "how come?", proves the point of the breeders that there is something wrong with you.  Because, no matter how much you state it as a fact, I mean, listen to yourself: "I can't have children because I hate children", "I would not make a good dad/mom", "I am too self absorbed to give time to children", "I have too many activities helping other children for me to have my own", "I love children, but I also love that they leave eventually", "parenting is a 24/7 job and it is not for me", and my favorite "why should I be required by law to change someone else's dirty diaper".

It has been said that nobody has more love than the person who is willing to die for friends.  The root of this comment goes down to the issue of how much are you willing to give of yourself for somebody else without expecting anything in return.  If you love a woman/man, you must likely get a sexual orgasm, but with children you may not only not receive anything, but the added heartache and disappointment may come as well, even if you did everything "right" in your opinion.  What gets me is that there are so many people lately that find it OK not to give of themselves to someone else for the sake of just doing it.  Their definition of love is obviously different.  And that is what is wrong with them.

I find it interesting to ask why you don't have children not because I want to pressure you into having them.  I want to know if I need to avoid you (worst case) or how to deal with you appropriately.  Not all people who don't want to have children are assholes, some are truly beautiful that want to be accepted into any group and don't mind listening to your tantrum stories and looking at your facebook pictures.  But don't get all offended if you are being asked this questions.  First of all, you don't have to answer them if you don't feel like you can be friends with the person asking.  We ask because rather than make the assumption that there is something wrong with you, we want to hear it from you.  You can be your own miserable way all by yourself with or without partner/wife/husband/cats.  This applies specially at work, we may not all want to be friends, but we all have to get along.  You may be skeptic about the breeder motives, but not all of us ask because we are nosy.  I truly ask because you sparked my initial interest to become friends/lovers/sexual partner.  Your response will determine if there is a chance at any of that.

/has 3 kids and a wife, no money, no regrets, no mistress and no interest on wasting time with self absorbed assholes.
 
2014-03-19 03:29:08 PM  

elgrancerdo: But don't get all offended if you are being asked this questions


It's none of your farking business, Mr "I'll choose only good people"

Fark off.  And don't forget your kids.
 
2014-03-19 03:30:56 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: MadMattressMack: udhq: CanisNoir: Umm, not wanting someone to murder another human being as a form of "birth control" isn't exactly a moral hang up so much as just common decency.

That a fetus is a human being is your belief, and yours alone, and it is not supported by ANY science on the matter.  It is merely a point of dogma, and shouldn't be used as a pretext to strip the basic human rights from someone who does not accept it as such.

To believe so, you also must believe that a woman who chooses to have sex surrenders the very ownership of her body to the government for the gestational period.

I'd agree with you to a point. You can't have an abortion at 8 months and 29 days because you decided you don't want it. I'm against abortion of viable fetuses outside of health concerns for the mother and / or fetus.

Abortions are not performed past the second trimester except in extreme medical cases.  So stop making up weird scenarios.


What? Did I not express this correctly? I said I agree with the established procedures that directly contradict the above text. Did I miss something in this thread where there was an establishment on what "fetus" meant other than "fetus"?
 
2014-03-19 03:31:35 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: bunner: At the risk of peeing in the petunias of the diverse and oft highly gymnastic and overwrought opinions on this lofty matter, uh, isn't it pretty much piss easy NOT to get knocked up if you don't want to?  I mean, I think we're past the coca cola douche and rosary stage for contraception.  Shouldn't this be a go to BEFORE one trundles off to get their very own abortion story?  And skip "but z0mg teh rape victims" rant.  This isn't about.  Plainly.

Bun, you know this.  Even diligent use of birth control fails.  Condoms break.  Pills fail, conception occurs, IUDs shift, not everyone is good with Norplant (as in allergic, and some insurances don't cover it anyway). Some women don't want to use the pill due to cancer risks.

So if birth control fails, which IS what the article referenced...that if her birth control failed and she got pregnant, she would have no issue with an abortion, a woman should have a child she took active steps to prevent?  And don't walk down that tubal ligation road, because no 20 something that's sexually active is going to have a tubal so she doesn't conceive. Or should women be coerced into using a drug they don't want to to satisfy some pearl clutching anti abortionist?

So what should they do?


Yeah, it get that.   But not at a rate that compels at least one abortion per birth control victim or they'd be out of business.  It is case per case, yeah, but most birth control DOES work and a lot of people don't bother and yeah, and you know this, lie about it because "I'm a victim" is the new national anthem.  That being said, amongst other things, they should sue the pharmaco untiol their gums bleed.  Every kick in the wallet improves technology because taking a handi wipe to your act is  cheaper than razing the company plant.  All I'm saying is at least put your f*cking shoes on before you walk into the mine field.
 
2014-03-19 03:32:19 PM  

ManateeGag: Nabb1: sigdiamond2000: reprobate1125: I think that recognizing that you're too self-absorbed to have children is a good thing.

I do too, but for some people, there is no good reason not to have children. A lot of people can't even process the concept of not wanting children, so they assume something is wrong with people who don't.

Those people are just as wrong as people who can't think of any justification for having kids. Parenting is hard work. You can't put yourself first again until they are able to take care of themselves. It's not for everyone. I know irresponsible people who shouldn't have kids and great people who would make great parents if they tried but choose not to.

people think my wife and I would make great parents (don't ask me why, I have no bloody idea) - neither of us really want kids, and we get a ton of shiat for it from people who think they know everything about our lives and how we live.  Why do people (not saying you) have to tell us that we are horrible people for the decisions we make in our lives?


Have you considered fostering? Just curious.
And, you're not horrible people: you're not contributing to over-populating our planet.
You're saving more money for retirement.
You never have to worry about your kid terrorizing others.
You can be an awesome Auntie and Uncle.
You can pursue the things you want without ever neglecting anyone.
 
2014-03-19 03:32:31 PM  

Pincy: I think you are spot on here. I've gotten this line before too, "But what if the baby you never plan on having was going to be the next Einstein?" They pretend like it's a compliment ("You are good enough to create the next Einstein") but really the implication is that you should be having kids for the good of the country/world/universe and if you don't then you are selfish.


What if that baby you never plan on having was going to become the next George Bush?

Honestly, I have two sisters. You can tell we're sisters if you look at our faces. But we're all entirely different people, who have taken different paths, have divergent views, look nothing alike in style/fashion, and generally you wouldn't think grew up in the exact same environment, bred from the same genes.

I love them dearly, and we have some things in common (like the sister and I who both get migraines - which is hereditary; and the panic attack thing - also hereditary) but NOTHING is a guarantee of what you get. I know my father wonders what he did wrong ending up with a liberal atheist childfree punk rock daughter.

*shrug* Nothing guarantees anything.
 
2014-03-19 03:32:46 PM  
MadMattressMack:

I'd agree with you to a point. You can't have an abortion at 8 months and 29 days because you decided you don't want it. I'm against abortion of viable fetuses outside of health concerns for the mother and / or fetus.

Abortions are not performed past the second trimester except in extreme medical cases.  So stop making up weird scenarios.

What? Did I not express this correctly? I said I agree with the established procedures that directly contradict the above text. Did I miss something in this thread where there was an establishment on what "fetus" meant other than "fetus"?


see bolded.
 
2014-03-19 03:32:49 PM  

MadMattressMack: if you don't have kids then you lose at evolution. But hey, if you'd rather the world be populated by bible thumpers then knock yourself out. Just don't complain when the world is populated by bible thumpers. I won't judge you for not having kids, but I will when you start whining.


See, but my beliefs are contagious. Its like catching a cold but instead of sneezing you ramble about theories of acceptable violence, shake your fist in wal-streets general direction, and yell at liberals.

I just need to infect a bunch of fundie kids. Each one is a 2 point swing!
 
2014-03-19 03:33:38 PM  

serpent_sky: Nothing guarantees anything.


Which is the very reason science exists.
 
2014-03-19 03:35:37 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: genner: DArque Bishop: the ha ha guy: GanjSmokr: "The official line of anti-choicers..."

I'm pro-choice, but saying "pro-lifers" are "anti-choicers" is about as stupid as saying "pro-choicers" are "anti-lifers".

Pro-choice = "It's your choice to terminate the pregnancy."
Pro-life = "Your pregnancy must be maintained at all costs."
Anti-choice = "You don't have a choice, you must have children or you're a failure as a human being."

Anti-life =

[img.fark.net image 400x300]

Both terms are propaganda. We should just call them pro-aboriton and and anti-abortion.

I'm down wit dat.

 Problem:
Even people who get abortions think they suck.
So in reality nobody really likes abortion, unless they like dead babies.

If we had a way to have the body reabsorb the kid, ie vanishing twin syndrome, it would be a better solution.
 
2014-03-19 03:35:44 PM  
Poor baby. Maybe you shouldn't make your personal choices public without expecting a public response to a private choice.
 
2014-03-19 03:38:16 PM  

bunner: Satan's Bunny Slippers: bunner: At the risk of peeing in the petunias of the diverse and oft highly gymnastic and overwrought opinions on this lofty matter, uh, isn't it pretty much piss easy NOT to get knocked up if you don't want to?  I mean, I think we're past the coca cola douche and rosary stage for contraception.  Shouldn't this be a go to BEFORE one trundles off to get their very own abortion story?  And skip "but z0mg teh rape victims" rant.  This isn't about.  Plainly.

Bun, you know this.  Even diligent use of birth control fails.  Condoms break.  Pills fail, conception occurs, IUDs shift, not everyone is good with Norplant (as in allergic, and some insurances don't cover it anyway). Some women don't want to use the pill due to cancer risks.

So if birth control fails, which IS what the article referenced...that if her birth control failed and she got pregnant, she would have no issue with an abortion, a woman should have a child she took active steps to prevent?  And don't walk down that tubal ligation road, because no 20 something that's sexually active is going to have a tubal so she doesn't conceive. Or should women be coerced into using a drug they don't want to to satisfy some pearl clutching anti abortionist?

So what should they do?

Yeah, it get that.   But not at a rate that compels at least one abortion per birth control victim or they'd be out of business.  It is case per case, yeah, but most birth control DOES work and a lot of people don't bother and yeah, and you know this, lie about it because "I'm a victim" is the new national anthem.  That being said, amongst other things, they should sue the pharmaco untiol their gums bleed.  Every kick in the wallet improves technology because taking a handi wipe to your act is  cheaper than razing the company plant.  All I'm saying is at least put your f*cking shoes on before you walk into the mine field.


well, I'm not arguing that.  I was referring to the content (using that term VERY loosely) of this writer's blog.  Not any other circumstance than that.  So, in that context, she uses birth control, it fails, she's going to have an abortion, I don't see why people get their panties all in a twist.

No, I agree it does not fail at a rate of significance.  And yes, some women use it as BC and not fall back, and lots of other bad reasons.  But in truth, why anyone would want to force a woman to have a child she didn't want and would most likely resent and treat badly (possibly while having major issues with drugs/alcohol/abuse) is beyond me.  I don't know why you would recommend suing pharma for bc failure.  Nothing is 100% except not having sex, and no bc out there says it's 100% and if they have side effects the user is informed of them.  I know, I've been on many kinds of oral bc until my tubal ligation.  I'm not sure where that comes into play here.
 
2014-03-19 03:38:27 PM  

CanisNoir: Because we have long established that the government *can* control what we do with our bodies, (see drug and suicide laws) and when it comes to decided laws, people having a "say" is how our Representative Republic works.


And currently, abortion is legal, so you really have no argument.
 
2014-03-19 03:39:00 PM  

MadMattressMack: ginandbacon: MadMattressMack: udhq: CanisNoir: Umm, not wanting someone to murder another human being as a form of "birth control" isn't exactly a moral hang up so much as just common decency.

That a fetus is a human being is your belief, and yours alone, and it is not supported by ANY science on the matter.  It is merely a point of dogma, and shouldn't be used as a pretext to strip the basic human rights from someone who does not accept it as such.

To believe so, you also must believe that a woman who chooses to have sex surrenders the very ownership of her body to the government for the gestational period.

I'd agree with you to a point. You can't have an abortion at 8 months and 29 days because you decided you don't want it. I'm against abortion of viable fetuses outside of health concerns for the mother and / or fetus.

Give me examples of women doing this.

I can't nor do I care to look up a case. But to believe it wouldn't happen is naive.


To believe it would is frankly bizarre. There are only 3? (I think--it might be 2) doctors who have clinics for late term abortions and they are medical procedures that are emergencies and devastating for the parents who have to go through them.

Dr. Tiller was murdered because of made up crap like you are spouting.
 
2014-03-19 03:43:43 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: well, I'm not arguing that.  I was referring to the content (using that term VERY loosely) of this writer's blog.


Ah.


What should she do?


My guess is get an honest job, but then again, people do seem to have a great relish for other people's dirty laundry and drama.


This joint is crowded, y'all, and if we think that all we have to do is dump all of our data into a binary format and push a button and everything gets better, we deserve to wake up in the idiocracy.
 
2014-03-19 03:45:37 PM  

ginandbacon: To believe it would is frankly bizarre. There are only 3? (I think--it might be 2) doctors who have clinics for late term abortions and they are medical procedures that are emergencies and devastating for the parents who have to go through them.


Nobody goes through 8.5 months of pregnancy and all the associated horrors and woes and says "ya know what? I changed my mind." It just doesn't happen. It's a sick fantasy of the anti-choice movement that women everywhere are getting JUST to the point of going into labor, and running off to evil abortion clinics who can't wait to abort that about to be born baby. They even set a clock to see if they can beat it. And then they take the products of that last second abortion, roast it over a fire  (and that's the ONLY way it can be prepared, it's part of the ritual) and all partake in a joyous late-term abortion feast.

In reality, anyone having an abortion in the third trimester is going through some serious shiat and is likely to die without said abortion, assuming there is even anything close to alive inside them. And they're having a hard time because they almost carried their pregnancy to term and there were literally no other options at that point. Those people, everyone should feel bad for, not use them as examples of run of the mill abortions that are not even close to developed babies.
 
2014-03-19 03:48:12 PM  

serpent_sky: ginandbacon: To believe it would is frankly bizarre. There are only 3? (I think--it might be 2) doctors who have clinics for late term abortions and they are medical procedures that are emergencies and devastating for the parents who have to go through them.

Nobody goes through 8.5 months of pregnancy and all the associated horrors and woes and says "ya know what? I changed my mind." It just doesn't happen. It's a sick fantasy of the anti-choice movement that women everywhere are getting JUST to the point of going into labor, and running off to evil abortion clinics who can't wait to abort that about to be born baby. They even set a clock to see if they can beat it. And then they take the products of that last second abortion, roast it over a fire  (and that's the ONLY way it can be prepared, it's part of the ritual) and all partake in a joyous late-term abortion feast.

In reality, anyone having an abortion in the third trimester is going through some serious shiat and is likely to die without said abortion, assuming there is even anything close to alive inside them. And they're having a hard time because they almost carried their pregnancy to term and there were literally no other options at that point. Those people, everyone should feel bad for, not use them as examples of run of the mill abortions that are not even close to developed babies.


You said it perfectly.

Except I thought the fetuses were braised, not roasted? Have I been doing it wrong all these years? Dammit. I have to turn in my feminazi card, don't I?
 
2014-03-19 03:48:43 PM  

bunner: What should she do?


My guess is get an honest job,


Ok, that made me larf.

Have a good day bunner, I gotta go to a meeting.  Why they schedule meetings at frakkin 3pm is beyond me.

:)
 
2014-03-19 03:50:00 PM  

TheExcalibur: Can't we just all agree anything with a heart beat has rights and go from there?

This pro-choice pro-life rhetoric/garbage just hides the fact that no one wants to sit down and define what constitutes "life"


No it doesn't.   What does the definition of life have to do with whether or not a woman is allowed to choose to abort?
A fetus (dead, alive or in between) has no inherent right to use a person's body against his or her will.
 
2014-03-19 03:50:57 PM  

someonelse: ERNesbitt: Pincy: bunner: "I don't want to have babies!"

"That works for me."


"But I totally want a stiff one in my girl place, like, a LOT!"


"Good luck to you."


Next attention whore, please.


And some tea.

I think we can all agree that women who like sex are morally reprehensible.

Just the ones who broadcast it ironically.

I need that explained.


Scenario 1: Extols the virtue of feminine principles and independence from the sexist regime; finds a "weak" partner onto which she can project her anger. (becomes the thing she claims to hate)

Scenario 2: Talks the talk, but gets all gooey when her pretentious, holier than though, boyfriend shows up... manages to convince herself that she wants to do and believe the same things he does. Secretly scared of being alone. (words and actions are in opposition)

Scenario 3: Completely normal person with a made-up online persona who says/does things for shock value, clicks, and attention. (hollow words with no substantial action)

tl;dr - You can't throw rocks at the boys with your friends and then sneak over for kissing games when it's dark.
 
2014-03-19 03:51:03 PM  

ginandbacon: serpent_sky: ginandbacon: To believe it would is frankly bizarre. There are only 3? (I think--it might be 2) doctors who have clinics for late term abortions and they are medical procedures that are emergencies and devastating for the parents who have to go through them.

Nobody goes through 8.5 months of pregnancy and all the associated horrors and woes and says "ya know what? I changed my mind." It just doesn't happen. It's a sick fantasy of the anti-choice movement that women everywhere are getting JUST to the point of going into labor, and running off to evil abortion clinics who can't wait to abort that about to be born baby. They even set a clock to see if they can beat it. And then they take the products of that last second abortion, roast it over a fire  (and that's the ONLY way it can be prepared, it's part of the ritual) and all partake in a joyous late-term abortion feast.

In reality, anyone having an abortion in the third trimester is going through some serious shiat and is likely to die without said abortion, assuming there is even anything close to alive inside them. And they're having a hard time because they almost carried their pregnancy to term and there were literally no other options at that point. Those people, everyone should feel bad for, not use them as examples of run of the mill abortions that are not even close to developed babies.

You said it perfectly.

Except I thought the fetuses were braised, not roasted? Have I been doing it wrong all these years? Dammit. I have to turn in my feminazi card, don't I?


well crap, I've been using sous vide!  But it does keep them tender...
 
2014-03-19 03:51:07 PM  

Graffito: A fetus (dead, alive or in between) has no inherent right to use a person's body against his or her will.


And yet, this colorful if abstruse definition is how we all got here.  :  )
 
2014-03-19 03:51:35 PM  

serpent_sky: And currently, abortion is legal, so you really have no argument.


At one point in our history Slavery was legal, that's now outlawed, so I guess I actually *do* have a point.
 
Displayed 50 of 357 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report