Originally Posted by Sarang01 One thing I find a bit offensive is it's always expected of the male to get a vasectomy but never the other side with the female. I know someone related to me who got the vasectomy but the partner didn't. Jeez talk about ing ridiculous.

No ridiculous at all. As noted above, a vasectomy a minor outpatient procedure, where as tube tying is pretty major surgery with a much longer recovery time. So it's pretty shitty of guys who don't want to have kids to not get one and ask their partner to have their tubes tied. And no need for both people to get it done, just wastefully health spending.

Oh and I really hope you do have kids. We need people like you to have kids to offset the idiots. Remember the beginning of "Idiocracy"? You're a college professor for crying out loud! Please have a kid.

Stupid logic as the kid wouldn't get great parenting. I only date career driven women. So even if I did want a kid it would be in day care as soon as it was old enough, summer camps etc. as neither myself or the people I date have time for being active parents.

Originally Posted by kodave And as far as birth control goes, it's time for the FDA and Congress to stop screwing around with Big Pharma and to start approving tests for things like the reversible injection that is long term birth control for men. (Big Pharma wants to develop pills because if you're popping pills every day you're giving them more money than you would for a one time procedure.) People fear STDs would rise rapidly, which I think they probably would, but that's why you also teach about personal responsibility and wrapping your dick even if barrier-birth-control isn't in play. The kind of birth control that is possible for men would just be another layer of protection. You can read more about it here.

I definitely agree with that. We need more forms of male birth control than just condoms. Too much of the burden is placed on women currently since most couples in committed relationships aren't using condoms--so the onus is on the women to hassle with the pill.

Male birth control

Originally Posted by kodave You might not count it as a "life," but at X number of weeks (don't remember off the top of my head, I think its roughly around 3 months?) you could theoretically remove it from the mother and it will be developed enough to survive prematurely (with a lot of assistance from modern medical science). Then that "lump of cells" is suddenly a life, with the only difference being that it is outside a womb rather than in it.

I *think* the record is 20 weeks (a little short of five months), though most doctors aim for 24 weeks (roughly 5 1/2 months) at a minimum.

But here's the thing, it's either a life or it isn't a life. I'm not going to claim to be an expert on what that cut off point is, but once you have decided it is a life (i.e. is the same as a baby outside the womb) you're a disgusting monster if you can justify killing a baby (again, short of extreme medical cases).

If it's not a life, then it's not a life and it shouldn't matter at all. It's a lumpy mass of cells that you're having removed on an outpatient procedure.

I don't feel there's a gray area here. Now, I do feel there's a bit of a gray area defining *when* it becomes a life - and that's a totally different debate. But whatever you decide in your mind, if it's "not a life", then I see no reason you should have any kind of negative thoughts towards someone who has the mass removed. If it's a life, then that life should be protected against those who wish to do it harm - and if you decide it's okay to terminate what you consider to be a life (one that is absolutely unable to defend themselves) because of circumstances completely outside the control of that individual - well, you're a horrible person.

Evictionism, which is based on property rights. Problem solved. I'll even assume the baby, at conception, is a full-fledged human being, with all the rights that entails. Not giving the baby air/food/shelter is not murder (if people don't have the right to force others to take care of it, logically, neither does the baby), and evictionism wouldn't chop the baby up in the womb or kill it with chemicals before removal, allowing a chance for artificial means of keeping it alive. Technology in this field will advance, eventually lowering the time at which babies could be kept alive.

Everyone wins.

I'm totally against male birth control made in THIS day and age. You'll note I don't say in the past but I would never pop a male pill created by the Big Pharma of this day and age as I believe that would either create one that would deliberately have side effects. If they didn't then they'd ditch the no side effects one for one that does. I don't trust these people(the CEO's) nowadays. Most are complete scum.
You can trust when the pill was made for female birth control. Yes it has side effects but you never hear about it having some truly absurd things and it can even be good for women with acne or who have an irregular period.
Somehow I doubt that male birth control would be similar.

I don't know what grosses me out more. The comment that he made, or the fact that since making the comment, people have started upping personal donations to his campaign. Yeesh.

Well now Rape and Out of Wedlock Kids are the same thing. This just shows that these pro-lifers just do not like women having sex for fun. It is really disturbing.

Also, make sure you watch the guy in the background. He has that WTF? look on his face when the batshit stuff starts flying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsdvH...yer_detailpage

Lol at the OH SHIT look on that guy's face. I would simply ask these guys if they supported the war, and after answering yes, I'd present them with statistics of the number of children who died due to the war and then ask his thoughts on that.

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-...ore-conception

New law in Arizona changing when to have an abortion. Felt it worked well in this topic.

Make no mistake - Todd Akin and Tom Smith's statements are poorly made, but the ideas they articulate (which are the truly frightening and astonishing parts) are *indeed* the GOP party line.

Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess Evictionism, which is based on property rights. Problem solved. I'll even assume the baby, at conception, is a full-fledged human being, with all the rights that entails. Not giving the baby air/food/shelter is not murder (if people don't have the right to force others to take care of it, logically, neither does the baby).

I'm pretty sure not giving a baby food, shelter or air is called chilled abuse, and if a baby died through such actions you would be probably be charged with something akin to manslaughter, if not murder.

Chilled abuse? That's just cold.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by mykevermin Make no mistake - Todd Akin and Tom Smith's statements are poorly made, but the ideas they articulate (which are the truly frightening and astonishing parts) are *indeed* the GOP party line.

Just to be clear, what are the ideas that you believe they articulate? From my relatively conservative background, I see a couple of jackasses who communicate very poorly and don't really think like me. I wouldn't vote for either of them.

Originally Posted by yourlefthand Just to be clear, what are the ideas that you believe they articulate? From my relatively conservative background, I see a couple of jackasses who communicate very poorly and don't really think like me. I wouldn't vote for either of them.

Both believe in making abortion in any and every circumstance illegal.

The gop platform (partially quoted, as it's not released yet b/c it has to be formally adopted at the convention first - processes, processes):

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...arty-platform/

While Republican officials stressed that the plank did not go into granular details, saying that they were better left to the states, the language of the plank seems to leave little room for exceptions to the abortion ban. It states that “the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.” “Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed,” said the draft platform language approved Tuesday, which was first reported by CNN. “We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”

No exceptions = the extension of 'personhood' concepts and 14th amendment rights to fetuses = Akin and Smith's viewpoints in more careful language.

I'm not really surprised. These are the same types of morons whose favorite book (the bible) says the best punishment for rapists is to force their rape victims into marrying them.

There seems to be a pattern of low regard for victims of rape.

Originally Posted by Temporaryscars There seems to be a pattern of low regard for victims of rape.

I suggest this with as much seriousness as Swift's "Modest Proposal" (i.e., I'm making a point and don't really want to see this happen):

Since men who commit rape now would have legal dominion over women's bodies by being able to select a victim, impregnate them against their will, force them to carry that child to term and deliver it (in addition to legal potential for custodial rights):

(not to mention all of these ideas/laws being proposed by men in the first place, mind)

it would only be completely fair turnabout if Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi (or any Congresswomen, but these two are the most maligned by the right such that this is the most appropriate selection) sponsored legislation that would mandate the removal of testes and penis for any males convicted of sex-related offenses.

(I don't limit it to "rape," since that would only lead to prosecutors and judges electing to reduce charges so as to prevent that punishment from occurring. Also for maximum outrage factor, which ought to drive the point home that much more.)

...yeah, yeah, we got that whole 8th amendment thing, but seeing as how the psychological and physical trauma of being forced to carry a rape baby to term is being proposed by one side in the name of "personhood," I'm sure we can come up with some clever means of circumventing the constitution just as they have done.

I can't tell if that's the best idea ever or the worst idea ever. It could go either way.

Originally Posted by mykevermin Both believe in making abortion in any and every circumstance illegal. The gop platform (partially quoted, as it's not released yet b/c it has to be formally adopted at the convention first - processes, processes): http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...arty-platform/ No exceptions = the extension of 'personhood' concepts and 14th amendment rights to fetuses = Akin and Smith's viewpoints in more careful language.

Yeah I was surprised at the condemnation Akin got about 'legitimate' rape, but then I realized they were condemning his batshit 'legitimate rape doesnt result in pregnancy' line. See: Akin & Ryan's 'forcible rape' language.

Originally Posted by mykevermin Both believe in making abortion in any and every circumstance illegal. The gop platform (partially quoted, as it's not released yet b/c it has to be formally adopted at the convention first - processes, processes): http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...arty-platform/ No exceptions = the extension of 'personhood' concepts and 14th amendment rights to fetuses = Akin and Smith's viewpoints in more careful language.

It's worth noting that that language did not make it into the platform.

Don't get me wrong, there's still plenty to not like in the platform, but the abortion language was softened a bit.


My personal view is that each abortion is a tragedy. I think it's foolish to try to make it completely illegal, both as a matter of pragmatism and due to the issues it raises in rape, incest, and health of the mother cases. Because of this view, I would prefer to emphasize better education, reasonable access to contraception, and better care for mothers and babies in order to reduce the cases where people view abortion as their only choice.

So you prefer the opposite of what the republican party wants then.