...

[quote name='Spokker']There's a great line in Roger Ebert's review of Natural Born Killers that is applicable here.



This isn't a national debate or an overview of the issues, it's a scandal over some stupid thing some guy said and it's being played out far too much. If only an overview of the two candidates stances on civil liberties was the top story on CNN for three days. Wait a second, they both agree on those things.

These social scandals cloud the minds of the electorate, but people like it because it gives us something to get all worked up about and it's easy to understand.[/QUOTE]

I whole-heartedly disagree. This isn't Monica Lewinski or Ashley Dupree. This is the kind of scandal that leads to healthy discussion of the issues.

Akin was the frontrunner, he had a lead and was on track to be the Republican's tide-turning Senator. Akin was talking about policy, he was trying to justify his political stance on abortion.

It's forcing the Republicans to spend a little too much time on an issue that has to potential to divide their base. It forces Republicans to explain their viewpoints on women's health issues. They can no longer duck behind language about definding the "unborn", they have to clarify what they think of women and how many rights women should be afforded when it comes to reproduction.

In short, it's a time when it sucks to be in the party of small-minded bitter misogynists. And I'm loving it!
 
[quote name='camoor']I whole-heartedly disagree. This isn't Monica Lewinski or Ashley Dupree. This is the kind of scandal that leads to healthy discussion of the issues.

Akin was the frontrunner, he had a lead and was on track to be the Republican's tide-turning Senator. Akin was talking about policy, he was trying to justify his political stance on abortion.

It's forcing the Republicans to spend a little too much time on an issue that has to potential to divide their base. It forces Republicans to explain their viewpoints on women's health issues. They can no longer duck behind language about definding the "unborn", they have to clarify what they think of women and how many rights women should be afforded when it comes to reproduction.

In short, it's a time when it sucks to be in the party of small-minded bitter misogynists. And I'm loving it![/QUOTE]

Totally agree with this.

In a perfect world, Akin would have made this statement, then been laughed out of the race. I mean, he didn't even go with the more reasonable "A life is a life, regardless of how it was conceived" line. He went with something so totally bull**** batty that it never should have been a point of discussion. Like Vermin Supreme, but without the satire.

But some of the "social conservatives" are so screwed up in the head that they actually support someone who thinks this. Thus, we apparently do need national discussion about it.
 
This is absolutely what people talk about when they complain that social issues take over in an election year to distract from real issues like the deficit, war and civil liberties.
 
I can't makes head or tails of this thread, is Akin trying to say that women of religious conviction form anti-sperm antibodies when being raped?
 
[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']I can't makes head or tails of this thread, is Akin trying to say that women of religious conviction form anti-sperm antibodies when being raped?[/QUOTE]

He tried to say that stress causes strain on the reproductive system and makes for a less friendly environment for conception.

Don't know why he would even bother trying to make that argument. If he wanted to talk about women who cry wolf after consensual sex, he chose a very awkward way to go about it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='speedracer']"and not only that Bob, but her body will fight it off if she's not the dirty whore we all auto-assume about her. A doctor told me that. That's fucking science right there. See? It's not just the bible. *wink wink*"

And he still has no idea why everyone's all pissy. Of course he wouldn't quit. He didn't say anything wrong. It's reality to them. If she isn't wheeled into the ER on the cusp of fucking death, bitch wanted it. [/QUOTE]

In my opinion, this is the part of the debate that should be getting the attention. It shouldn't be his loose grasp of biology or his belief that vaginas come equipped with panic rooms for the egg, but the dangerous implication that if someone gets pregnant from rape, it obviously wasn't rape and she wanted it, whether she realizes it or not. That is the most reprehensible part of what he said. It is taking the victims of an already traumatic incident and characterizing them either as whores or liars, and this is when many women are already reluctant to report the crime.
 
That ad didn't even have a message, it was just a bunch of buzzwords strung together with a religious overtone.
 
No, abortion is not a civil liberties issue from the woman's perspective. There's a debate there in which a third-party, the fetus/baby/gob of cells/whatever is involved. The debate is over what rights this third-party has and when they have them. I think they have zero rights until the first trimester is over or in cases in which the parasite is going to kill its host, but clearly others disagree. It might be a civil liberties issue from the would-be baby's perspective, at least in the 2nd or 3rd trimester.

And you do not have a right to an abortion performed by a professional anymore than you have a right to public transportation, health care or ipods. There are all sorts of things that are wrong with making the provision of a product or service a right, and defenders of abortion should understand why.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's the catch for conservatives, they only care so long as the umbilical cord is still attached, as soon as that baby is born it better get a fucking job and stop living off the (government) tit.
 
[quote name='Clak']That's the catch for conservatives, they only care so long as the umbilical cord is still attached, as soon as that baby is born it better get a fucking job and stop living off the (government) tit.[/QUOTE]

Yeah. There are alot of Christian charities that help poor families but way too much of their time and money is spent on protesting abortion.

I guess it's more fun to shove gross-out dead fetus posters into the face of your political opponents then it is to actually help folks out.
 
Well, it's more that finger pointing and criticism comes easier than empathy and assistance.

Nobody's ever going to embarrass you if you criticize them for thinking they're the worst person on earth. But when you're giving unapologetically, people can and will take advantage of you. It's riskier to your self-esteem than being a dick.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, it's more that finger pointing and criticism comes easier than empathy and assistance.

Nobody's ever going to embarrass you if you criticize them for thinking they're the worst person on earth. But when you're giving unapologetically, people can and will take advantage of you. It's riskier to your self-esteem than being a dick.[/QUOTE]

Yeah but I thought the entire point of the New Testament was that it's cool to give of yourself. Alot of Christians don't get their own religion.

They also don't get the OT. As Lewis Black said "my people have a tendency to exaggerate"
 
[quote name='camoor']Yeah but I thought the entire point of the New Testament was that it's cool to give of yourself. Alot of Christians don't get their own religion.
[/QUOTE]
Yep. Frankly I think I live a more Christian lifestyle than many Christians I've met.
 
Guys why are we focusing on just bashing Republicans?

Why aren't we focusing on calling out "both sides as being shit instead of pretending the shit don't stink on on side"?

Both sides do it guys. Democrats are equally guilty.
 
I skimmed through the thread but didn't read every post completely so I apologize if this has already been stated.

When I first heard about this a few days ago, my impression of his definition of an illegitimate rape is that: "She didn't want to have sex with that dude that forced himself onto her but she had fun anyway." IMO this Congressman doesn't have much respect for women. My understanding is that no medical studies have proven that women "shut down" reproductive activities in their bodies when they are raped. Not to mention sperm can live in a woman's body for 3-5 days. I guess this magical "shut down" process that no one knows anything about stays in place for almost a week (or longer)??????

This is complete lunacy. It's no wonder the Republican party is even distancing itself from this.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']Well that is were you are wrong.

Dems are guilty of a lot of things but their evils do not match up to the evils of advocating the many things that repubs do. If you listen to a lot of what they are saying they basically want us to go back to 1920s time in which women stay their ass in the kitchen and blacks and other minorities should keep picking that cotton and shut up.


Look at their policies my friend.....enough with this bullshit "they both do the same thing!!!!!" No....no they dont and I would like for you to prove how they are the same instead of just saying it.[/QUOTE]

So you mean like Southern Democrats in the 1920's? Southern Democrats in the early and mid part of the 20th century weren't necessarily all that progressive. They do both have examples of terrible behavior. Who's ahead depends on what period of time. I personally believe that Christians aren't bad people at all they are passionate about human life. Which whatever you are pro-choice or pro-life we can agree abortion stops that process. To me to be concerned about how we view unborn life is up for debate.
 
[quote name='Commander0Zero']So you mean like Southern Democrats in the 1920's? Southern Democrats in the early and mid part of the 20th century weren't necessarily all that progressive. They do both have examples of terrible behavior. Who's ahead depends on what period of time. I personally believe that Christians aren't bad people at all they are passionate about human life. Which whatever you are pro-choice or pro-life we can agree abortion stops that process. To me to be concerned about how we view unborn life is up for debate.[/QUOTE]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZijLQGH1v0
 
Well that didn't move me. Many Dems and Republicans are Christians and believe abortion is abhorrent. Some believe it is a personal choice between the women and her creator and not the government and some believe the government should be involved. Having a debate over the things he rattled off is not wrong it makes for good comedy to exaggerate but poor public discourse.
 
[quote name='Commander0Zero']So you mean like Southern Democrats in the 1920's? Southern Democrats in the early and mid part of the 20th century weren't necessarily all that progressive. They do both have examples of terrible behavior. Who's ahead depends on what period of time. I personally believe that Christians aren't bad people at all they are passionate about human life. Which whatever you are pro-choice or pro-life we can agree abortion stops that process. To me to be concerned about how we view unborn life is up for debate.[/QUOTE]

Historically, both parties were almost the exact opposite of what they are now. They started resembling their current selves around the 60s.
 
Oh yeah, Christians love human life, as long as it's white, Christian life, otherwise historically they haven't given a shit. Hell, they've killed their own for BS reasons. No, that's the difference between Christians and "Christians".

edit- Man do I miss Carlin....:(
 
[quote name='Clak']Oh yeah, Christians love human life, as long as it's white, Christian life[/QUOTE]
Black babies are aborted at a much higher rate than other groups.

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/18/138473348/debate-boils-over-african-americans-abortions

The data does show that abortion is more prevalent in the African-American community than among other groups. While black women make up about 13 percent of the U.S. female population, they account for 30 percent of abortions performed in the U.S.
Click to expand...

If abortion were outlawed, and I don't think it should be at the federal level or in my own state, it would increase black population figures disproportionately. This type of thinking leads to extremist web sites such as this one.

I don't see how a racist could be pro-life. If anything, racists would look at these figures and support abortion.
 
One Congressman compares the illegality of dogfighting to the legality of being a pedophile and forcing the victim to having an abortion and now this? It is disturbing how the "real America" keeps hiring these guys to represent them.

But I'm more saddened at how quickly people forget that earlier this year, the GOP tried to cut funding for women's health and held conferences of nothing but men about a female's right to birth control. GOP "War on Women" it sure is fucking false.
 
[quote name='Commander0Zero']Well that didn't move me. Many Dems and Republicans are Christians and believe abortion is abhorrent. Some believe it is a personal choice between the women and her creator and not the government and some believe the government should be involved. Having a debate over the things he rattled off is not wrong it makes for good comedy to exaggerate but poor public discourse.[/QUOTE]
There's no debate to have. Nobody really feels strongly about it except no-exceptions right to lifers and there's no point to "debating" with them what the policy should be. Their shit is so weak that for them to feel as strongly as they do and with all the energy they put into it, they (their bought and paid for politicians) absolutely DETEST having to talk about it because they know how horrible it sounds.

In April Mitt Romney said he supported personhood (ie no exception legislation). Now he's calling for this guy to quit the race. Why? Seriously, anyone? I can't even think of an answer that's not an utter fabrication. It's only because everyone else is saying it. That's how gutless they are. Even the presidential candidate that's doing everything he can think of to kiss the far right's ass won't give this guy cover and they agree on policy.

I just like these kinds of things because deep down in places they don't like to talk about at parties, it reminds libertarians that they're in bed with statist shitbags that will wheel around and shove big government down their throats as soon as they win. True libertarian mental torture is thinking about the governmental process that will take place (committees? how fucking rad would that be?) that decides whether it was a rape or not when abortion is outlawed cept incest/rape.

srsly tho. economy important n stuff.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='detectiveconan16']One Congressman compares the illegality of dogfighting to the legality of being a pedophile and forcing the victim to having an abortion and now this? It is disturbing how the "real America" keeps hiring these guys to represent them.

But I'm more saddened at how quickly people forget that earlier this year, the GOP tried to cut funding for women's health and held conferences of nothing but men about a female's right to birth control. GOP "War on Women" it sure is fucking false.[/QUOTE]
In explaining himself, King argues that animals have more rights than fetuses, and suggests that liberals have so devalued life, that a man can rape a young girl, kidnap her, force her to undergo an abortion across state lines, and then “drop her off at the swingset….and that’s not against the law in the United States of America.”
Click to expand...
Uh, yes it is.
 
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...ict-anti-abortion-language-in-party-platform/

Pretty hypocritical that the GOP as Akin to drop out, when they just approved language in the party platform stating support for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion with no mention of exceptions for rape. Yeah, what Akin said was more inflammatory as it was so nonsensical, but opposing abortion even in rapes is the bigger issue behind his comments.

The platform also supports an amendment banning gay marriage. Here's another column on it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/opinion/what-the-gop-platform-represents.html
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Pretty hypocritical that the GOP as Akin to drop out, when they just approved language in the party platform stating support for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion with no mention of exceptions for rape. Yeah, what Akin said was more inflammatory as it was so nonsensical, but opposing abortion even in rapes is the bigger issue behind his comments.[/QUOTE]

I know this discussion has popped up on the forums before, but I have to disagree, even though I tend to side on the pro-choice side of things.

If someone honestly, truly believes without a doubt the whole "a life is a life is a baby is a fetus is a life" mantra, then they *should* fully believe in outlawing abortions even in the case of rape (the *only* exceptions would be in extreme cases involving the health of the mother).

If a fetus truly is a life, then it should not matter who the parents are or what the circumstances of the creation of that life is - the rape-fetus should be given the same "rights" as every other fetus.

Again, let me stress, I don't agree with the whole fetus=baby thing, but if you honestly do and you make exceptions because the fetus (a.k.a. baby) is a product of rape, then you're a horrible person.
 
UB to me that argument seems to say that if a woman gets pregnant under any circumstances she gives up her rights at conception and becomes an incubator only.
I'll be the first to admit I find abortion abhorrent but I find no issue with a woman having an abortion under the situation of rape or if real protection was used(birth control pills or condoms). In the former case I don't even feel the need to mention adoption given it was unwarranted but the latter it was consensual sex so even if protection was used I MIGHT suggest it as a consideration. Even then I would see no problem that they decide to have an abortion since they showed intent to not have children.
Past this, if it's unprotected, they can have an abortion but I find them utterly disgusting as I don't think it should be used as birth control.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']UB to me that argument seems to say that if a woman gets pregnant under any circumstances she gives up her rights at conception and becomes an incubator only.
I'll be the first to admit I find abortion abhorrent but I find no issue with a woman having an abortion under the situation of rape or if real protection was used(birth control pills or condoms). In the former case I don't even feel the need to mention adoption given it was unwarranted but the latter it was consensual sex so even if protection was used I MIGHT suggest it as a consideration. Even then I would see no problem that they decide to have an abortion since they showed intent to not have children.
Past this, if it's unprotected, they can have an abortion but I find them utterly disgusting as I don't think it should be used as birth control.[/QUOTE]

I I tend to agree with UB on this as far as why people are taking a strong stand on this. In cases of rape and incest the process of life has stared no matter the circumstances. I personally have no issue with abortion in these cases. But the opinion that Birth Control or a condom somehow removes intent to conceive and then it's okay to have an abortion to me is baffling. Don't have sex. None of those methods ever claim to be 100% effective in preventing unwanted pregnancy but you know what is abstinence (well unless you were a virgin named Mary, so one failure). People have 100's of choices before they lay down and have sex the only thing that has no choice is the fetus/life starting process. 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.
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
For sure. And I don't care what others think as it's a personal issue with what one's moral feelings on the matter are--I just take exception at people who try to force their views on others and ban the options available to pregnant women.

I take precautions to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and personally have no moral qualms with abortion as a back up if those precautions fail. And yes, a woman changing her mind when pregnant is possible--especially if it's someone that's not sure if they want kids or not. My current g/f loathes children even more than I do probably (if that's possible) so it's highly unlikely to happen in this case. And it's unlikely I'd ever date anyone who wasn't sure they didn't want kids even if things don't work out long term with this relationship.

But if that it did with her or someone else, well I guess you'd just have to add child support to my other bills. It's the woman's choice and I wouldn't pressure abortion in any way, shape or form. But I also would feel no obligation to be an involved father since anyone I'm dating and sleeping with (I don't have casual sex, one night stands etc.) is well aware that I'm adamantly opposed to ever having kids up front.
 
[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]

The Palin family is the best example why abstinence is full of it.
 
That is actually where I draw the line. If you end up creating a life, you have an obligation to be involved in it's life and help raise it, there are enough absent fathers in the country. Just sending a monthly check isn't enough.
 
[quote name='camoor']The Palin family is the best example why abstinence is full of it.[/QUOTE]

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 name='Clak']That is actually where I draw the line. If you end up creating a life, you have an obligation to be involved in it's life and help raise it, there are enough absent fathers in the country. Just sending a monthly check isn't enough.[/QUOTE]

I generally agree. And it's highly unlikely that the case he mentioned would happen when you're only dating women who say they 100% don't want kids and understand you're of the same mind. There should be an understanding there that keeping an accidental pregnancy isn't an option.

Best you can do when you don't want kids is to stick to that when deciding who to date (i.e. don't end up with someone who wants kids, or may want kids, just because they're hot and everything else fits), and take precautions by using birth control properly. Though I'll definitely go the extra mile and get a vasectomy, and hopefully in the near future, to ensure I never end up in that situation.
 
[quote name='Commander0Zero']And while pro-choice I believe abortion used as birth control is reprehensible.[/QUOTE]
That's done roughly never by anyone.
 
[quote name='Commander0Zero']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]

That was the point. Palin is abstinence only and probably didn't educate her children about birth control much if at all. If she had, then Bristol likely wouldn't have gotten knocked up.
 
[quote name='Clak']That is actually where I draw the line. If you end up creating a life, you have an obligation to be involved in it's life and help raise it, there are enough absent fathers in the country. Just sending a monthly check isn't enough.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this 1000%. The involvement is worth more than the money. Fathers are needed. If you have a kid you are needed. I've been there not wanting to have a kid(s) and it's tough to give up so much. But hopefully if it ever happens to anyone the will be active in the child's life.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That was the point. Palin is abstinence only and probably didn't educate her children about birth control much if at all. If she had, then Bristol likely wouldn't have gotten knocked up.[/QUOTE]

I stand corrected then. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top