...

[quote name='Commander0Zero']What? Abstinence isn't full of anything. Its full proof. Reality is most people will have sex before marriage or any kind of commitment for that matter. So all the precautions need to be taken before having sex to avoid unwated pregancy and STD's. My point is all the education in the world about the risky behavior doesn't beat simply not involving yourself in the risky behavior. Your dislike of the Palins doesn't mean they are wrong in putting forth abstinence to avoid just the situations Bristol finds herself in now. As a parent your kids aren't going to follow you lock step they need to make their own choices that they will live with. You can only give the best information you can. My issue is with folks that want to preach abstinence and nothing else. They aren't living in reality.[/QUOTE]

The phrase is not full proof, it's fool proof.

And obviously abstinence is not fool proof, because if it were then Palin's foolish daughter would have kept her legs shut.
 
[quote name='Clak']And if ever there was a family that needed birth control, it's the Palins.[/QUOTE]

Nah - at least they can afford it. My nomination would either be Octomom or that guy in the south who has more then 20 kids with different women.
 
[quote name='camoor']
And obviously abstinence is not fool proof, because if it were then Palin's foolish daughter would have kept her legs shut.[/QUOTE]

He said he didn't think abstinence only was a realistic idea.

He was just saying that not having sex is the only way to be 100% sure to not have an unwanted pregnancy or get an STD. And he's right that it's the only fool proof way to 100% avoid those things as birth control can fail, a vasectomy or tube tying can be botched etc. and you can never know with 100% confidence that your partner isn't cheating on you and risking STD exposure.

But it's pretty much moot as not having sex at all just isn't a viable option for most people who don't want kids. So there's really no practical fool proof way to be sure you'll never knock someone up/get knocked up. But you can make the chances pretty damn slim with proper use of birth control, and even slimmer with vasectomy/tube tying. So there's seldom accidental pregnancies that result when one is taking the appropriate cautions. They tend to happen when one gets lazy with birth control, or gets drunk and doesn't use a condom or puts it on wrong and it breaks, or the female forgets to take her pills or take something else that interacts with them etc.
 
[quote name='camoor']Nah - at least they can afford it. My nomination would either be Octomom or that guy in the south who has more then 20 kids with different women.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't really basing it on quantity.;)
 
[quote name='Commander0Zero']And what you stated is fine. But all your rights and freedoms come with personal responsibility. We do alot of things for pleasure and enjoyment that can lead to serious consequences. Having a child is among the most serious. Like I said you choose sex as an activity for recreation doesn't mean now all of a sudden you don't share in the risks and responsibility of your actions (unwanted pregnancy, STD's). And while pro-choice I believe abortion used as birth control is reprehensible. And I repeat this you have 100 choices to make before you have sex. As long as you have sex you will risk unwanted pregnancy and you will also risk getting a women pregnant that might change her view on weather to have the child or not. Something you have no control over. Like i tell my son what you want might be different than what you get.[/QUOTE]
Hey, smart guy, terminating a pregnancy IS the ultimate act of personal responsibility. Ok, maybe that's hyperbolic, but is still IS an act of personal responsibility. Anyone can have a kid and pawn it off to society and knowing your limits is a big part of being responsible. Deciding to end it knowing that there's no way one can or would want to take care of a child is a pretty big step no matter how quickly one would come to that conclusion.

And LOLZ@abortion as brith control:roll:
 
[quote name='dohdough']Hey, smart guy, terminating a pregnancy IS the ultimate act of personal responsibility. Ok, maybe that's hyperbolic, but is still IS an act of personal responsibility. Anyone can have a kid and pawn it off to society and knowing your limits is a big part of being responsible. Deciding to end it knowing that there's no way one can or would want to take care of a child is a pretty big step no matter how quickly one would come to that conclusion.

And LOLZ@abortion as brith control:roll:[/QUOTE]

Wow, I can sincerely say you made me think of the whole topic a different way. My belief is (perhaps used to be? :lol:), in cases of rape or danger to the mother, I'm all for abortion. Beyond that, there are SO many precautions you can take the chance of unwanted pregnancy is miniscule. Either be safe or keep em' crossed. You gave me something to think about, thanks DD.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Hey, smart guy, terminating a pregnancy IS the ultimate act of personal responsibility. Ok, maybe that's hyperbolic, but is still IS an act of personal responsibility. Anyone can have a kid and pawn it off to society and knowing your limits is a big part of being responsible. Deciding to end it knowing that there's no way one can or would want to take care of a child is a pretty big step no matter how quickly one would come to that conclusion.

And LOLZ@abortion as brith control:roll:[/QUOTE]

The personal responsibility would be not to get pregnant if you know you don't want or can't handle/afford a child. At the point an abortion is wanted all other decision making has failed and the choice to abort is completely self serving. If you can't handle the consequences of an act then don't do it. Like was mentioned above there are many ways to avoid an unwanted pregnancy but the only one full proof way is to not have sex or only have sex with your own sex. Human life means something so does the process that creates it. We don't have unfettered abortions in this country which shows pro-choice/pro-life the process of bringing a life into this world means something and shouldn't be terminated lightly. And as far as abortion as birth control personal opinion but when there are women who have had 2 or 3 abortions what would you call it?
 
But once a woman has become pregnant, the issue of responsibility in that regard is in the past. Now she has to decide if having it or aborting it is the most responsible thing to do, and if she can't take care of the child, what do you think the responsible thing is? Have it and let the state raise it? That's responsible?
 
[quote name='Commander0Zero']The personal responsibility would be not to get pregnant if you know you don't want or can't handle/afford a child. At the point an abortion is wanted all other decision making has failed and the choice to abort is completely self serving. If you can't handle the consequences of an act then don't do it. Like was mentioned above there are many ways to avoid an unwanted pregnancy but the only one full proof way is to not have sex or only have sex with your own sex. Human life means something so does the process that creates it. We don't have unfettered abortions in this country which shows pro-choice/pro-life the process of bringing a life into this world means something and shouldn't be terminated lightly. And as far as abortion as birth control personal opinion but when there are women who have had 2 or 3 abortions what would you call it?[/QUOTE]

So when the kid grows up screwed up because they didn't care, what do we do then? Blaming the parents is great, but it doesn't really solve the problem at that point, where an abortion would have. Doh, basically saying the same thing as Clak.:)
 
[quote name='soulvengeance']So when the kid grows up screwed up because they didn't care, what do we do then? Blaming the parents is great, but it doesn't really solve the problem at that point, where an abortion would have. Doh, basically saying the same thing as Clak.:)[/QUOTE]

So irresponsible people make a self-serving decision and it is mistaken as some sort of act of responsibility. Look obviously there are two different schools of thought here. I don't agree with one but I will agree it is a personal decision.


And as a side note.
Make the adoption process easier for ANY loving family to adopt.
 
[quote name='Commander0Zero']So irresponsible people make a self-serving decision and it is mistaken as some sort of act of responsibility. Look obviously there are two different schools of thought here. I don't agree with one but I will agree it is a personal decision.


And as a side note.
Make the adoption process easier for ANY loving family to adopt.[/QUOTE]

Well, I'm not saying it's a courageous decision or anything like that, but yes, it's still a responsible decision even if it is self-serving. I somewhat agree with making adoption easier, I think the real problem is that the original birth parents just still have a lot of rights even though they give up the child, and that makes people hesitant to adopt in the U.S.
 
[quote name='Commander0Zero']The personal responsibility would be not to get pregnant if you know you don't want or can't handle/afford a child. At the point an abortion is wanted all other decision making has failed and the choice to abort is completely self serving.[/quote]
So what if it's self-serving for the individual? Everything's self-serving. Does it mean that more resources are used up because of it? Of course not because that would be dumb as there would be one less person in the town/city/state/country/world.

Isn't having kids self-serving as well? How many individuals have the ability to be completely self-sufficient without outside help? Absolutely none. Are you donating sperm or your wife donating eggs? Get the fuck outta here with that moralistic "self-serving" bullshit.

Personal responsibility doesn't start or end with deciding to put on a condom or taking pills or deciding not to fuck; it shifts with context and there is no line drawn. People aren't robots and it's beyond ridiculous to expect people to act perfectly rational especially when it comes to sex. That's even dumber than thinking having an abortion is bad simply because it's self-serving.

If you can't handle the consequences of an act then don't do it. Like was mentioned above there are many ways to avoid an unwanted pregnancy but the only one full proof way is to not have sex or only have sex with your own sex. Human life means something so does the process that creates it.
Click to expand...
Human life doesn't mean shit in this world. If it did, we, as a society would take better care of eachother.

We don't have unfettered abortions in this country which shows pro-choice/pro-life the process of bringing a life into this world means something and shouldn't be terminated lightly.
Click to expand...
What the fuck makes you think it's taken lightly? Countless women have died because of cultural taboos and bans on abortion. Even now, do you think that someone walks into a clinic and walks out with an abortion willy nilly? Maybe you should go volunteer at a clinic and get yourself some fucking empathy because an abortion isn't a goddamned oil change, so stop talking about it like it is.

And as far as abortion as birth control personal opinion but when there are women who have had 2 or 3 abortions what would you call it?
Click to expand...
Taking personal responsibility for one's actions, motherfucker. Can you handle it?
 
The adoption process is long and hard BECAUSE they want to make sure the people adopting are right for the child. Make it easier (meaning less checking of the couple) and more kids will end up with parents that shouldn't have them. There are enough kids without parents not just in this country, but all over the world. I have seen first hand kids being controlled by adults in what is basically organized crime, and it's heart breaking. Too many kids, not enough parents, it's best that people have fewer kids by whatever means necessary, even if that means aborting them before they're born. It isn't responsible to bring a kid into the world when you can't take care of them. Of course I wish people would think about that beforehand, but to put it simply, better late than never.
 
[quote name='dohdough']So what if it's self-serving for the individual? Everything's self-serving. Does it mean that more resources are used up because of it? Of course not because that would be dumb as there would be one less person in the town/city/state/country/world.

Isn't having kids self-serving as well? How many individuals have the ability to be completely self-sufficient without outside help? Absolutely none. Are you donating sperm or your wife donating eggs? Get the fuck outta here with that moralistic "self-serving" bullshit.

Personal responsibility doesn't start or end with deciding to put on a condom or taking pills or deciding not to fuck; it shifts with context and there is no line drawn. People aren't robots and it's beyond ridiculous to expect people to act perfectly rational especially when it comes to sex. That's even dumber than thinking having an abortion is bad simply because it's self-serving.


Human life doesn't mean shit in this world. If it did, we, as a society would take better care of eachother.


What the fuck makes you think it's taken lightly? Countless women have died because of cultural taboos and bans on abortion. Even now, do you think that someone walks into a clinic and walks out with an abortion willy nilly? Maybe you should go volunteer at a clinic and get yourself some fucking empathy because an abortion isn't a goddamned oil change, so stop talking about it like it is.


Taking personal responsibility for one's actions, motherfucker. Can you handle it?[/QUOTE]

Why you like to pick fights is beyond me and you using the word empathy is interesting to say the least. You rattled off a bunch of opinions I rattled off a bunch of opinions. But you decide you like to insult people. I have empathy I didn't say that the decision was taken lightly in fact I stated we have boundaries on abortion so as a society weather pro-choice/pro-life we believe it is serious. The mothers pay for that decision emotionally never said otherwise.Having kids is anything but self-serving. You have any idea how much time effort and money it takes to raise just one child? Nobody is talking about a ban on abortion either so maybe you're just free-styling there. Plain and simple I'm pro-choice so I'm not trying to tell people how to live.
 
[quote name='Commander0Zero']Why you like to pick fights is beyond me and you using the word empathy is interesting to say the least.[/QUOTE]
Why do you find it interesting? Because I'm extending the same empathy as you are with extending people that choose to have abortions?

You rattled off a bunch of opinions I rattled off a bunch of opinions. But you decide you like to insult people.
Click to expand...
It really pisses me off when people use epistemological arguments like this.

NO. Opinions are NOT equal and if you're going to spout one, then you should be prepared to have it disseminated and test the veracity and application of it.

If I'm insulting, it's because you insult my intelligence with superficial arguments using nebulous language.

I have empathy I didn't say that the decision was taken lightly in fact I stated we have boundaries on abortion so as a society weather pro-choice/pro-life we believe it is serious. The mothers pay for that decision emotionally never said otherwise.
Click to expand...
First off, it's spelled w-h-ether. And secondly, the only reason why we have restrictions on abortions is because PEOPLE WANT TO BAN IT. We shouldn't have any restrictions on it beyond a standard disclaimer and waiver like any other surgical procedure.

Having kids is anything but self-serving. You have any idea how much time effort and money it takes to raise just one child?
Click to expand...
I do and I already addressed it and made a point about it in a previous post, which you ignored. While you talk about "the sacrifice," you're talking about what YOU do for YOUR child; not anyone else's, all while you expect others to sacrifice for yours too as that's simply part of living in our society.

Nobody is talking about a ban on abortion either so maybe you're just free-styling there. Plain and simple I'm pro-choice so I'm not trying to tell people how to live.
Click to expand...
Are we not discussing politicians talking about banning abortions with you using the similar rhetoric?

Of course you're not telling people how to live explicitly, just implicitly with the blame game. Like this:
[quote name='Commander0Zero']Look I'm pro-choice but if women would make better choices they wouldn't be in a situation to have to decide to terminate a pregnancy.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, let's totally absolve all the men of all responsibility here.:roll:

Again, if all human life was so goddamned precious and special, we'd have the social safety nets to allow women to keep their children without having to merely subsist just because they had a child. Abortion is only a problem because people want to ban it, but it has far reaching systemic effects that go unaddressed with merely adding restrictions upon it. You'd be doing yourself a service if you thought about that.

tl;dr: Shit simply isn't as simple as you're making it out to be. Ignore everything else if you want, but pay attention to that statement.
 
Actually, the privilege women have is that they get the government assistance when they have a kid. Men are typically barred from assistance. Here's a good article from Brookings about this.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2006/08/19welfare-haskins

Men generally do not qualify for cash welfare, child care, or Medicaid, and they qualify for an EITC that is worth only a tenth as much as the mothers' EITC. The only major benefit for which they qualify is food stamps—to go along with continual pressure from child support and, for many, incarceration.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with everything in this article, but it is clear that men are shut out of welfare in favor of women. Men are hunted like dogs for child support, but single mothers are treated with kid gloves.

So women can opt out of their parental responsibilities through adoption or abortion (in my state you can surrender your child within 72 hours of birth no questions asked), which is fine, but men cannot. On top of that, if they cannot earn enough to pay the child support, they can have their already meager wages garnished or be sent to jail. I think that abortion should be legal in the first three months after conception, and men should be able to absolve themselves of responsibility within that three months as well. If that were legal, you would see a hell of a lot more women close their legs and/or take their birth control correctly.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Actually, the privilege women have is that they get the government assistance when they have a kid. Men are typically barred from assistance. Here's a good article from Brookings about this.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2006/08/19welfare-haskins


I don't agree with everything in this article, but it is clear that men are shut out of welfare in favor of women. Men are hunted like dogs for child support, but single mothers are treated with kid gloves.[/quote]
Yeah, that's nice and all, but you failed to mention that the mothers overwhelmingly have primary custody of any children. Not to mention that any welfare that a mother with custody qualifies for, a father would as well because the money isn't for the parents, but for the children.

Welfare doesn't work the way you think it does and hasn't since long before Clinton put a 5 year lifetime cap on welfare for adults. Just stop talking about welfare at all because you've shown time and time again that you have absolutely no clue about how it works.

So women can opt out of their parental responsibilities through adoption or abortion (in my state you can surrender your child within 72 hours of birth no questions asked), which is fine, but men cannot. On top of that, if they cannot earn enough to pay the child support, they can have their already meager wages garnished or be sent to jail. I think that abortion should be legal in the first three months after conception, and men should be able to absolve themselves of responsibility within that three months as well. If that were legal, you would see a hell of a lot more women close their legs and/or take their birth control correctly.
Click to expand...
Yeah...cause it's ALWAYS about women being sluts.:roll:

Oh, and no shit you don't agree with most of the article because in your opinion, black people are just a bunch of lazy motherfuckers looking for handouts and 100% responsible for all of their problems because Black Culture.
 
Okay - for those who don't think a fetus is a life (which includes me), why, exactly is an abortion bad?

A fetus is just a lump of cells - why is it different than clipping off a toenail?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The vast majority of sex people have is for pleasure, not reproduction. It's one of the few pleasures in life. I 100% never want to have kids, but still have lots of sex and always will as long as physically able. Birth control unfortunately isn't 100% effective, so abortions are always going to be needed for the rare cases where if fails even when used properly.

One thing they should change is making it easier to get vasectomies at younger ages. Lots of doctors refuse to do them on younger males. Something like that should never be up to a doctor.

So anyway, I fully get the distinction Sarang was making. No one likes abortions, but they're necessary in some cases IMO as no one who didn't want to have a child should be forced to carry it to term. At the same time, there's no excuse for people who don't want children to not use birth control and take every precaution they can to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Abstinence is an unrealistic option. Unless someone is fucked up physically and just has no sex drive, it's just not reasonable to expect someone who never wants kids to refrain from sex entirely just because of the possibilities of birth control etc. not working. Though again such people should get vasectomies, tubes tied etc. and doctors should do them on any adult who requests them.[/QUOTE]

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 fucking ridiculous.
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.
edit: Dohdough, speaking of mothers having primary custody I find it a bit ridiculous the leeway that can get them in certain states especially when compared to the absolute shit a male would get in the same situation. I would even add when a male has stepped up to the plate for his kids.
 
[quote name='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 fucking ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]

A vasectomy is a minor procedure, while a tubal ligation is major surgery. The recovery time for a tubal ligation is longer, and the risk of complications is higher.

So, unless the male has a medical issue that would make a vasectomy riskier than normal, it just makes sense for a couple to choose a vasectomy over a tubal ligation.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Okay - for those who don't think a fetus is a life (which includes me), why, exactly is an abortion bad?

A fetus is just a lump of cells - why is it different than clipping off a toenail?[/QUOTE]

Ugh I clicked the wrong forum and unfortunately decided to browse this thread, but c'mon, the answer to your question is obvious: A toenail is a lump of keratin. A fetus is a lump of cells that has the potential to be birthed and function on its own as an independent organism, whether or not you think life begins once the fetus is birthed or some point before that or at conception or at jerking off.

Dumbing it down to that kind of level of questioning is just feigning ignorance of what sexual production of mammals is about. 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.

That's why its simplest, legally speaking, if the fetus is pre-viability it can be aborted with ease. After viability is reached you have to think about things and the mother's decision not make up her mind in those X number of weeks. Yeah, there are a lot of social and societal strains on the decision at that point, but at the same time, you've already committed to letting offspring grow in your stomach to the point of viability, which should count for something (putting aside instances of rape and harm to the mother). What that counts for is obviously open for heavy debate and there are so many different considerations to be had and possibly balanced.

I think it would help tremendously if as a nation/society we changed our attitudes about sex and contraception though and stopped making everything so taboo and "wrong." It's time to hit teenagers hard with the realities of sex and biology. Abstinence only doesn't cut it. But information about contraception is half assing it without lessons in responsibility. It's time to teach about personal responsibility, not only about sex but about life in general (because it seems like many Americans would benefit from learning about something like, say, budgeting - especially the consequences of budgeting whether its going to be for a family or for finding the money for an abortion.) Of course all of this requires heavy education reform, which is up shit creek itself. And that education reform also heavily ties into our failing criminal justice system for certain segments of society. Not to mention how marred our education system is by political bickering. Plus religious beliefs are somehow finding a way to edge out science and reason in the 21st century.

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.

If we could become more socially responsible and intelligent as a society, maybe we could cut off a lot of the behavior that ends up in situations where someone is pondering abortion in the first place. It will never be full proof or perfect but I think it might go a long way. It of course feels like it would be impossible to reach given all of the shit that lies between reaching it.
 
[quote name='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 fucking ridiculous.
[/quote]

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.
Click to expand...

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.


[quote name='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.
[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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).[/QUOTE]
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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/...ict-anti-abortion-language-in-party-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.”
Click to expand...

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.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']There seems to be a pattern of low regard for victims of rape.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='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/...ict-anti-abortion-language-in-party-platform/



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

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.
 
[quote name='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/...ict-anti-abortion-language-in-party-platform/



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

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.
 
[quote name='Clak']So you prefer the opposite of what the republican party wants then.[/QUOTE]

Not exactly. I'm somewhere in between the views of the "instant human" Republicans and the "worthless parasitic mass of cells" Democrats.

The idea of banning abortion completely doesn't make sense to me, but Biden giving the thumbs up to China's one child policy seems terrible also.
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']It's worth noting that that language did not make it into the platform.[/QUOTE]

Hmm. I'll look into that, then. The version I saw was on scribd, and I didnt want to create an account just to download that.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Hmm. I'll look into that, then. The version I saw was on scribd, and I didnt want to create an account just to download that.[/QUOTE]

I was surprised, but I actually spent time on GOP.com to see for myself.
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']Not exactly. I'm somewhere in between the views of the "instant human" Republicans and the "worthless parasitic mass of cells" Democrats.

The idea of banning abortion completely doesn't make sense to me, but Biden giving the thumbs up to China's one child policy seems terrible also.[/QUOTE]
No offense, but from what you posted before, you pretty much do. Doesn't mean you agree with anyone else, but your stance is pretty much the opposite of the republican party's, not that that's a bad thing.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Location saved so others who are interested can save some time: http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf[/QUOTE]
The second fucking paragraph and they're already bullshitting people.
The pursuit of opportunity has defined America
from our very beginning. This is a land of opportunity.
The American Dream is a dream of equal opportunity
for all. And the Republican Party is the
party of opportunity.
Click to expand...
Bullshit.:roll:
 
[quote name='Sarang01']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.[/QUOTE]

You think that the CEOs of large pharma company tell the scientists to intentionally develop medications with side effects? Side effects are probably ignored or downplayed in the pharma industry, but intentinally causing side effects? I doubt that.

Fyi - there isn't one "pill." There are many methods of hormonal birth control, some of which were developed fairly recently. And, there are some truly absurb side effects associated with any hormonal birth control for women, such as blood clots, which can cause death.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']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=TsdvHXWbUzc&feature=player_detailpage[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Temporaryscars']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.[/QUOTE]

Who is that guy? Was he a suppoerter or worked for him or something? He did 3 things.

1. He was like "OH SHIT"
2. Looked and him as was saying "Are you shitting me"
3. Looked down/sideways as like he was hiding from the camera, "oh fuck, I need to find a better line of work"


[quote name='Temporaryscars']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.[/QUOTE]

If you look at the video, he regards any women having sex out of wedlock is rape. By your conclusion, he pretty much thinks any woman with premarital sex in low regard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top