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.

(CNN)   Oh no, not this shiat again   ( cnn.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, Pain-Capable Unborn Child, Unborn Child Protection, Roe v. Wade, Bill Clinton, Abortion, United States House of Representatives, President of the United States, Pro-choice  
•       •       •

7193 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Oct 2017 at 9:13 AM (2 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-10-03 07:08:24 AM  
(sigh) just...fark.  What the fark??!!  It's none of your god damned business!  Women cannot legally be compelled to carry and deliver a baby, you jackasses!  This is not the farking Handmaiden's Tale!
 
2017-10-03 07:30:16 AM  
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

Not to be confused with the F*ck Em They're Already Alive Act that has full support of conservatives everywhere and takes over once birth has occurred.
 
2017-10-03 07:42:29 AM  

Ambivalence: (sigh) just...fark.  What the fark??!!  It's none of your god damned business!  Women cannot legally be compelled to carry and deliver a baby, you jackasses!  This is not the farking Handmaiden's Tale!


it is in Pence's Amerikkka
 
2017-10-03 08:26:20 AM  
Republicans normally name things better. And, normally, name them the exact opposite of what they are intended to achieve.

The lack of imagination in the naming effort signals that they aren't serious about this one.
 
2017-10-03 08:37:04 AM  
Oh, well, "support from the White House".

This changes everything!
 
2017-10-03 08:41:34 AM  
What if a woman wants to stick a rifle up her cooter and shoot the kid at 21 weeks?

/divide by zero, Con-tards
 
2017-10-03 08:52:47 AM  
Never waste a crisis. While everyone is distracted by Puerto Rico and the last Vegas shooting, now is the time to repeal roe v wade and pretend we are a theocracy.
 
2017-10-03 09:01:34 AM  
They probably think they have the SCOTUS to overturn Roe v Wade. They are hoping someone is gone in a year or so, when the court challenge is taken up by them.
 
2017-10-03 09:06:37 AM  

Nadie_AZ: They probably think they have the SCOTUS to overturn Roe v Wade. They are hoping someone is gone in a year or so, when the court challenge is taken up by them.


Just when I reach the age where a year just whizzes by, I get sucked back into the Time Warp.
'Time Warp' Scene w/ Lyrics | The Rocky Horror Picture Show
Youtube tkplPbd2f60
 
2017-10-03 09:15:09 AM  
Can these people take a break from being awful human beings for just a little while?  The constant onslaught of terribleness is exhausting.  Maybe that's the point.
 
2017-10-03 09:15:49 AM  
Is America great again yet ?
 
2017-10-03 09:16:34 AM  

Ambivalence: (sigh) just...fark.  What the fark??!!  It's none of your god damned business!  Women cannot legally be compelled to carry and deliver a baby, you jackasses!  This is not the farking Handmaiden's Tale!


Well... not yet...
 
2017-10-03 09:16:37 AM  
The bill could be made into a decent compromise, with some work that Congress won't bother to put in.

Remember that almost all abortions (99%) occur before week 21.  Also remember that while a fetus certainly doesn't start out as human, most Western countries recognize that it does become human sometime in the second trimester (week 13 to 27), and by the third trimester deserves legal protection as a citizen.

So on the face of it a ban on week 21+ abortions is not unreasonable.  It would mostly have no practical impact, and there is moral & legal justification for it, as the State does have a valid interest in protecting its citizens.

The main obstacle to turning this into a proper law is trust.

Democrats have zero trust that if they work with Republicans on this compromise, that this will be the end of it... that later an 18+ ban will come, and then 15+, then 12+, etc.  Without that trust they will fight this tooth and nail.  And without Democratic input, the law is likely to be rigid and inflexible, ignoring that the absolute age of a fetus is very difficult to determine, and without that certainty medical opinion matters, and that exceptions for medical circumstances need to be allowed.

So it could be a good way forward on a thorny issue, but instead will be mere grandstanding... and another missed opportunity to come together as a country.
 
2017-10-03 09:16:40 AM  
When will they pass the next one, the 'Women Aren't People Act'?
 
2017-10-03 09:17:55 AM  
This is as good a reason as any to never want Conservatives to have power in the US government.  They will never stop trying to outlaw all abortion.  Some that I know have stated bluntly that they are fine with a Conservative government doing all sorts of repulsive things, as long as they save the babies.  That's the base they're playing to.  The only reason they might knee=cap their own attempts is that having it there to fight keeps the loyalty.  If they pass this, they'll need to find a new boogie man.
 
2017-10-03 09:17:59 AM  
The same farkwads that let CHIP expire yesterday, throwing NINE FARKING MILLION poor children off health insurance.

Assholes.
 
2017-10-03 09:18:22 AM  
I was under the impression that constitutionally protected rights were not up for a vote..

So, I guess this means the 2nd Amendment is on the chopping block, yes? And those pesky reporters need to start getting their stories 'correct' now and again!
 
2017-10-03 09:18:35 AM  

GooberMcFly: What if a woman wants to stick a rifle up her cooter and shoot the kid at 21 weeks?

/divide by zero, Con-tards


Which is why we need fetus-sized guns!

pbs.twimg.com
 
2017-10-03 09:18:48 AM  
Bunch of old men telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies because religious sky beard won't tolerate women shenanigans.
 
2017-10-03 09:19:02 AM  

SomeAmerican: The bill could be made into a decent compromise, with some work that Congress won't bother to put in.

Remember that almost all abortions (99%) occur before week 21.  Also remember that while a fetus certainly doesn't start out as human, most Western countries recognize that it does become human sometime in the second trimester (week 13 to 27), and by the third trimester deserves legal protection as a citizen.

So on the face of it a ban on week 21+ abortions is not unreasonable.  It would mostly have no practical impact, and there is moral & legal justification for it, as the State does have a valid interest in protecting its citizens.

The main obstacle to turning this into a proper law is trust.

Democrats have zero trust that if they work with Republicans on this compromise, that this will be the end of it... that later an 18+ ban will come, and then 15+, then 12+, etc.  Without that trust they will fight this tooth and nail.  And without Democratic input, the law is likely to be rigid and inflexible, ignoring that the absolute age of a fetus is very difficult to determine, and without that certainty medical opinion matters, and that exceptions for medical circumstances need to be allowed.

So it could be a good way forward on a thorny issue, but instead will be mere grandstanding... and another missed opportunity to come together as a country.


Compromise?

Hey let's ask men to compromise their rights to control their bodies.

Doesn't that sound f*cked up?
 
2017-10-03 09:19:36 AM  

Nadie_AZ: They probably think they have the SCOTUS to overturn Roe v Wade.


They do.
Thanks, non-voting assholes!  Thanks, racist farkstick Americans!
 
2017-10-03 09:20:08 AM  

Nadie_AZ: They probably think they have the SCOTUS to overturn Roe v Wade. They are hoping someone is gone in a year or so, when the court challenge is taken up by them.


Organ donors and host bodies are needed for Kennedy and Ginsberg.
 
2017-10-03 09:20:20 AM  
Unconstitutional laws for some, large tax breaks for others!
 
2017-10-03 09:21:27 AM  

holdmybones: The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

Not to be confused with the F*ck Em They're Already Alive Act that has full support of conservatives everywhere and takes over once birth has occurred.


Absolutely this.

Also, serious question, in what instances would someone need or want to terminate a 5 month+ pregnancy? I'm pro-abortion and a woman's body's her body and whatnot, but if you don't want the kid, shouldn't you be able to make a decision before then? Are tests for conditions like Downs syndrome not possible until later?

/don't have and don't want kids so I'm no expert on where babies come from
 
2017-10-03 09:21:33 AM  

holdmybones: The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

Not to be confused with the F*ck Em They're Already Alive Act that has full support of conservatives everywhere and takes over once birth has occurred.


Pain Understanding Natal Kindness Act would have a better acronym
 
2017-10-03 09:22:28 AM  

markie_farkie: The same farkwads that let CHIP expire yesterday, throwing NINE FARKING MILLION poor children off health insurance.

Assholes.


That's by design. 

Now punish the poor women  by forcing them to carry an unwanted pregnancy and keep them saddled with medical debt for their entire lives.
 
2017-10-03 09:22:33 AM  

SomeAmerican: Remember that almost all abortions (99%) occur before week 21.


And the ones that don't are often because some kind of medical anomaly is found.  Banning abortions after 20 weeks is basically saying that elective abortions are fine but medically recommended ones are right out.
 
2017-10-03 09:23:04 AM  
img.fark.net

I have no idea where this is from. But I like it.
 
2017-10-03 09:23:18 AM  

Skeleton Man: Also, serious question, in what instances would someone need or want to terminate a 5 month+ pregnancy? I'm pro-abortion and a woman's body's her body and whatnot, but if you don't want the kid, shouldn't you be able to make a decision before then? Are tests for conditions like Downs syndrome not possible until later?

/don't have and don't want kids so I'm no expert on where babies come from


Abortions in the last trimester are because shiat is terribly, awfully farked up with mom and/ or fetus.  This needs to remain legal because of how rare and extenuating the circumstances are.
 
2017-10-03 09:23:34 AM  
Now's not hte time to talk about abortion so soon after people have gotten abortions.
 
2017-10-03 09:23:53 AM  
Primaries have consequences.  I would say remember that next time but you chucklefarks wont remember shiat and will just do it again, forever.
 
2017-10-03 09:24:16 AM  

Skeleton Man: holdmybones: The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

Not to be confused with the F*ck Em They're Already Alive Act that has full support of conservatives everywhere and takes over once birth has occurred.

Absolutely this.

Also, serious question, in what instances would someone need or want to terminate a 5 month+ pregnancy? I'm pro-abortion and a woman's body's her body and whatnot, but if you don't want the kid, shouldn't you be able to make a decision before then? Are tests for conditions like Downs syndrome not possible until later?

/don't have and don't want kids so I'm no expert on where babies come from


I'm just a simple hyper-intelligent space chicken, but I could see the pregnancy causing life-threatening health risks to the mother only after a certain period of time, due to the increased stress on the body in the later stages of pregnancy.
 
2017-10-03 09:24:27 AM  
Will this law get struck down?  Eventually.

Will mothers die in the mean time?  By design.
 
2017-10-03 09:25:04 AM  

SomeAmerican: as the State does have a valid interest in protecting its citizens.


Since when do pregnant women lose their citizenship?
 
2017-10-03 09:25:26 AM  
I guess this is to ensure kids with birth defects that can't be detected early in pregnancy are born? I'm sure we'll get right on building out the support that parents will need to care for those kids.
 
2017-10-03 09:26:08 AM  

Skeleton Man: holdmybones: The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

Not to be confused with the F*ck Em They're Already Alive Act that has full support of conservatives everywhere and takes over once birth has occurred.

Absolutely this.

Also, serious question, in what instances would someone need or want to terminate a 5 month+ pregnancy? I'm pro-abortion and a woman's body's her body and whatnot, but if you don't want the kid, shouldn't you be able to make a decision before then? Are tests for conditions like Downs syndrome not possible until later?

/don't have and don't want kids so I'm no expert on where babies come from


You can actually get most of the Downs markers 10 weeks in with new (expensive) testing, along with other genetic markers.

Late term would probably be mother-related or a serious condition that would kill the baby before birth.

Not a pediatrician but have two kiddos - one recently enough for the new genetic testing. I'm sure others are far more knowledgeable.
 
2017-10-03 09:26:16 AM  

LegacyDL: Bunch of old men telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies because religious sky beard won't tolerate women shenanigans.


No kidding. Republicans must be so proud to be sponsoring the sort of legislation that wouldn't be out of place coming from bearded old men squatting over their filthy sandals in a cave in Pakistan.
 
2017-10-03 09:26:18 AM  
Sure, why not?  The crazies have their shill in the SCOTUS now.
 
2017-10-03 09:27:08 AM  

Skeleton Man: Also, serious question, in what instances would someone need or want to terminate a 5 month+ pregnancy? I'm pro-abortion and a woman's body's her body and whatnot, but if you don't want the kid, shouldn't you be able to make a decision before then? Are tests for conditions like Downs syndrome not possible until later?


You are correct.  Many severe birth defects and pregnancy complications are not visible to tests until 20 weeks, which accounts for a large percentage of abortions that occur after this time.  20+ week abortions are "elective" in the sense of "I elect to not give birth to a child that will only live to suffer for a few hours to days before dying".  This is the choice laws like this will forbid you from making.
 
2017-10-03 09:27:28 AM  
I wish all the women who Trump paid for to have an abortion show up in public with a copy of the doctor's bill.
 
2017-10-03 09:28:29 AM  

Ambivalence: (sigh) just...fark.  What the fark??!!  It's none of your god damned business!  Women cannot legally be compelled to carry and deliver a baby, you jackasses!  This is not the farking Handmaiden's Tale!


Well of course not. This is the backstory for The Handmaids Tale.

/It's also the back story for ASoIaF, with our wonderful Mad King
 
2017-10-03 09:29:03 AM  

Weaver95: Never waste a crisis. While everyone is distracted by Puerto Rico and the last Vegas shooting, now is the time to repeal roe v wade and pretend we are a theocracy.


Pretend?
 
2017-10-03 09:29:13 AM  

Epoch_Zero: Skeleton Man: holdmybones: The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

Not to be confused with the F*ck Em They're Already Alive Act that has full support of conservatives everywhere and takes over once birth has occurred.

Absolutely this.

Also, serious question, in what instances would someone need or want to terminate a 5 month+ pregnancy? I'm pro-abortion and a woman's body's her body and whatnot, but if you don't want the kid, shouldn't you be able to make a decision before then? Are tests for conditions like Downs syndrome not possible until later?

/don't have and don't want kids so I'm no expert on where babies come from

I'm just a simple hyper-intelligent space chicken, but I could see the pregnancy causing life-threatening health risks to the mother only after a certain period of time, due to the increased stress on the body in the later stages of pregnancy.


I'm aware of that, but the article does say "with exceptions for instances where the life of the mother is at risk" so I assumed there was something more to this.

/also: buck bawk buck buck, bok-bok buckity bawk
 
2017-10-03 09:30:03 AM  

Arachnophobe: GooberMcFly: What if a woman wants to stick a rifle up her cooter and shoot the kid at 21 weeks?

/divide by zero, Con-tards

Which is why we need fetus-sized guns!

[pbs.twimg.com image 597x153]


*twitch* *twitch*

Really not sure if satire
 
2017-10-03 09:30:04 AM  

Skeleton Man: holdmybones: The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

Not to be confused with the F*ck Em They're Already Alive Act that has full support of conservatives everywhere and takes over once birth has occurred.

Absolutely this.

Also, serious question, in what instances would someone need or want to terminate a 5 month+ pregnancy? I'm pro-abortion and a woman's body's her body and whatnot, but if you don't want the kid, shouldn't you be able to make a decision before then? Are tests for conditions like Downs syndrome not possible until later?

/don't have and don't want kids so I'm no expert on where babies come from


Because the child turns out to be brain dead and carrying out for another four months is abject cruelty? Or many other cases? What the hell is wrong with you?
 
2017-10-03 09:30:28 AM  

Ambivalence: (sigh) just...fark.  What the fark??!!  It's none of your god damned business!  Women cannot legally be compelled to carry and deliver a baby, you jackasses!  This is not the farking Handmaiden's Tale!


I don't understand how any woman can be Repuglican voter, let alone a politician. Stepford Women, Stockholm Syndrome, or gender self-hatred raised to an art form.
Also keep in mind: the babies on the anti-abortion billboards? Always white.
 
2017-10-03 09:30:31 AM  

TappingTheVein: Is America great again yet ?


If this is Great America I would much rather prefer Mediocre America. This stuff is exhausting.
 
2017-10-03 09:31:03 AM  
Pills fail, condoms break, teeangers in shiatty red states with no sex ed think if the girl goes on top she can't get pregnant. Do they think every single one of those women should be forced to carry the child to term??

What if she's broke, how does she pay for care?
What if she lives on the 5th floor and there's no lift?
Wat if the pregnancy's difficult and she has to stop work or school?
What if she's on her own?

You then want to force those women to go through the ordeal of giving birh and then handing their baby over?

Even accepting all of that stuff.. there are more than 650,000 abortions every year in the US. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH 650,000 BABIES ?!
 
2017-10-03 09:31:20 AM  

eiger: Unconstitutional laws for some, large tax breaks for others!


Naturally, there is a belief that things would be no different under Kodos.

BUT ITS EMAILS!
 
2017-10-03 09:31:28 AM  
Because they want to have a test case they can take to the SCOTUS, so their newly bought and bribed judiciary can finally overturn their Christian desire to destroy the lives of women everywhere
 
Displayed 50 of 232 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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