Jump to content

the alabama abortion attack


hayden_horn

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Aqua Buddha said:

The Duggar wing of the Republican party wants to force a 15 year old girl to have a baby if her brother impregnates her and the parents do nothing.

The Left advocates killing the baby, regardless of the  complete innocence in its existence.

 

This is fun, running with an agenda, eh?

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, slorch said:

The Left advocates killing the baby, regardless of the  complete innocence in its existence.

 

This is fun, running with an agenda, eh?  improving lives... one murder at a time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, slorch said:

The Left advocates killing the baby, regardless of the  complete innocence in its existence.

This is fun, running with an agenda, eh?

This is where complete innocence runs headlong into the notion of original sin.

Man, Christianity is full of contradictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, alincoln said:

Exactly.  First trimester abortions should be free and encouraged.  That said, sterilization should be required after two or possible three abortions.  

So I am not on board with forced sterilization under any circumstances; however, I do think that a reasonable approach might be to require some level of exit counseling at that point and making available, voluntarily of course, either regular OC methods or long-acting birth control methods. 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

So I am not on board with forced sterilization under any circumstances

when i graduated from undergrad at ut many years ago, my girlfriend's parents paid for us to go on a cruise out of ft. lauderdale.  that is the one time i have done that.  i vehemently disagree with your statement.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

So I am not on board with forced sterilization under any circumstances; however, I do think that a reasonable approach might be to require some level of exit counseling at that point and making available, voluntarily of course, either regular OC methods or long-acting birth control methods. 

Offer to perform the abortion for free if they will accept a form of long acting birth control (also free) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Anastasis said:

So I am not on board with forced sterilization under any circumstances; however, I do think that a reasonable approach might be to require some level of exit counseling at that point and making available, voluntarily of course, long-acting birth control methods. 

Haha.  Exit counseling.  I completely understand why the middle and upper class avoid interacting with the tens (hundreds?) of millions of irresponsible mouth breathers in this country who are entirely incapable of modifying their behavior in response to exit counseling or effectively employing birth control but at least recognize their existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, alincoln said:

Haha.  Exit counseling.  I completely understand why the middle and upper class avoid interacting with the tens (hundreds?) of millions of irresponsible mouth breathers in this country who are entirely incapable of modifying their behavior in response to exit counseling or effectively employing birth control but at least recognize their existence.

Margaret Sanger reincarnate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As hateful as the right can be, there are certainly no shortage of Bill Maher-style misanthropes among liberals.  I guess it's okay since they don't limit their hatred to poor minorities but extend it to whites as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

As hateful as the right can be, there are certainly no shortage of Bill Maher-style misanthropes among liberals.  I guess it's okay since they don't limit their hatred to poor minorities but extend it to whites as well.

you make one cruise joke on this thread...suddenly you're francis galton.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

If they're so fucking worried about "life," Alabama would focus its attention on an infant mortality rate that is nearly double Cuba's and a maternal mortality rate that's worse than Libya's.

I'm sure it's lower than the national average, but you really can't compare infant mortality rates in the US vs. other countries. They measure completely differently than we do.

However, the method of calculating IMR often varies widely between countries, and is based on how they define a live birth and how many premature infants are born in the country. Reporting of infant mortality rates can be inconsistent, and may be understated, depending on a nation's live birth criterion, vital registration system, and reporting practices

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, slorch said:

 

Quote

I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.

 

It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.

 

https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. 

I'm pro-choice, but that's not a particularly good metaphor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

Disgusting classicism there, jimmy.  

 


Sing, Goddess, Achilles' rage,
Black and murderous, that cost the Greeks
Incalculable pain, pitched countless souls
Of heroes into Hades' dark,
And left their bodies to rot as feasts
For FAT LADIES AT THE FOOD BAR, as Zeus' will was done. 
    Begin with the clash between Agamemnon-- 
The Greek warlord--and godlike Achilles
Edited by RDCanecutter
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

As hateful as the right can be, there are certainly no shortage of Bill Maher-style misanthropes among liberals.  I guess it's okay since they don't limit their hatred to poor minorities but extend it to whites as well.

Hating misanthropes is another form of misanthropy, #curmudgeonsrppl2

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

 


Sing, Goddess, Achilles' rage,
Black and murderous, that cost the Greeks
Incalculable pain, pitched countless souls
Of heroes into Hades' dark,
And left their bodies to rot as feasts
For FAT LADIES AT THE FOOD BAR, as Zeus' will was done. 
    Begin with the clash between Agamemnon-- 
The Greek warlord--and godlike Achilles

FAT LADIES AT THE FOOD BAR on RASCALS OF FIRE 

 

 

IS THE BIBLE CONSIDERED A CLASSIC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

FAT LADIES AT THE FOOD BAR on RASCALS OF FIRE 

 

 

IS THE BIBLE CONSIDERED A CLASSIC?

I think an essential part of the Classics is getting to rub up on nekkid statues of young Ganymede, and the Bible rules-as-written is down on that. But then after the Council of Nicaea there was an opioid epidemic among unemployed Nekkid Ganymede sculptors, so one o them funny-hat dudes found a loophole, and so you could buy a nekkid Ganymede statue again, you just had to call it Sebastian and shoot it with arrows.

So maybe.

And maybe a cruise is a form of purgatory, or purgative, if you get the right bug on board.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Let go of your foolish pride, and get on the raft. We have 1 hour before the wind changes. Do you want to make it to Havana, or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2019 at 6:31 AM, workswithseed said:

Really though I don't want people to be discriminated. If the baby is black it doesn't make it less human than a white rich man. When I adopt a child, I wouldn't mind adopting any race.

So you aren’t going to answer the question. Got it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A man who raped a 12-year-old has been awarded joint custody of her child despite being convicted of her rape and another sexual assault on a child.

The convicted rapist assaulted the girl nine years ago and she subsequently became pregnant.

A judge has given Christopher Mirasolo, 27, parenting time and joint legal custody of the eight-year-old boy after a paternity test found he was the father.

Since his conviction for the rape in 2008, Mirasolo, from Brown City, Michigan, has been convicted of another child sex assault, for which he served four years in prison.

As reported by The Detroit News, the victim is now 21-years-old and her attorney, Rebecca Kiessling, is seeking protection under the federal Rape Survivor Child Custody Act to halt his access.

The custody was granted by Judge Gregory S Ross and Mirasolo was given the victim’s address and his name added to the birth certificate, without the victim’s consent.

“This is insane,” said Ms Kiessling, who filed objections on Friday with the judge. “Nothing has been right about this since it was originally investigated.

“He was never properly charged and should still be sitting behind bars somewhere, but the system is victimising my client, who was a child herself when this all happened.”

The matters ordered by the court will be taken up at a hearing later this month.

According to Ms Kiessling, Mirarsolo forcibly raped and threatened to kill her client in September 2008.

Mirasolo was found guilty of third-degree criminal sexual conduct and sentenced to one year in jail, but only served six and half months.

In March 2010, Mirasolo committed another offence on a victim aged between 13 and 15 years olf which he served four years in prison for.

“She, her 13-year-old sister and a friend all slipped out of their house one night to meet a boy and the boy’s older friend, Mirasolo, showed up and asked if they wanted to go for a ride,” said Kiessling.

“They thought they were going to McDonald’s or somewhere.

“Instead, he tossed their cellphones away, drove to Detroit where he stole gas from a station and then drove back to Sanilac County, where he kept them captive for two days in a vacant house near a relative, finally releasing the older sister in a park.

“He threatened to kill them if they told anyone what happened.”

Mirasolo was arrested a month later, she said, when her client was pregnant.

The victim decided to keep the child as she did not want the “baby to be a victim too” and left school to live with relatives and worked to support herself.

He was sentenced to one year in prison but only served six and half months before early release to care for his sick mother.

In March 2010, Mirasolo committed a sex assault on a victim between the age of 13 and 15-years-old. He served four years with this second offence.

Barbara Yockey, Mirasolo’s attorney, said it is unclear what her client’s future involvement, if any, will be with the eight-year-old boy and declined to discuss any of his past criminal cases.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-raped-12-old-awarded-114904992.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now he says he misspoke and he understands there's no such thing as "consensual rape."  He also said that only 1 or 2% of the rape cases he handled involved "strangers jumping out of the bushes."
Guess what, gentlemen.  If a woman consents to have sex with you and you start to do something she doesn't want, like anal for example, and she tells you to stop and you don't, you're a rapist, every bit as much as a guy who grabs a random jogger and rapes her.  Same thing if it's a date and you're making out on the couch and she tells you to slow down and you don't.  There's no equivocating on this.  Calling it "date rape" doesn't make her any less of a victim or him any less of a monster.
It's shocking and disgusting to hear this from a guy who adjudicated actual sexual assault cases.  And it's no wonder why so many rapes go unreported.  "They need to live with the consequences of their actions"?  Are you fucking kidding me?
And why is it ALWAYS a Republican who says something like this?  Every single time.  In the unlikely case that there's a Republican woman reading this, I implore you to consider which of those things means more to you: being a woman or being a Republican.  Because they're at odds on almost every level right now and you have a choice to make.
 
 

“He says what I’m thinking!”
This is the Republican id, let loose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

And why is it ALWAYS a Republican who says something like this?  Every single time.  In the unlikely case that there's a Republican woman reading this, I implore you to consider which of those things means more to you: being a woman or being a Republican.  Because they're at odds on almost every level right now and you have a choice to make.

 

 

It's not a bug, it's a feature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For starters; I’m for the most part pro choice (not a fan of late term) so I hope this doesn’t come off differently.

I have a couple questions that I’ve occasionally wondered about and am curious about others opinions.

Let’s say Vic get’s one of gets one of his tinder chola’s pregnant and he wants her to get an abortion but she doesn’t want to.  Even if he offers to pay for the abortion; when the baby is born, if he’s got a job, he’s on the hook for child support.  There is not choice for Vic.

Now, let’s say in the same scenario Vic wants the baby, but the chola ops for an abortion.  Again there there is no choice for Vic.

Does Surly think this is fair?  My lean is towards the ability to forgo parental rights in the event she wants to keep it and he doesn’t but I’m not sure how to execute on that.  In the second scenario I don’t think there is any solution beneficial to the man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, SDG said:

For starters; I’m for the most part pro choice (not a fan of late term) so I hope this doesn’t come off differently.

I have a couple questions that I’ve occasionally wondered about and am curious about others opinions.

Let’s say Vic get’s one of gets one of his tinder chola’s pregnant and he wants her to get an abortion but she doesn’t want to.  Even if he offers to pay for the abortion; when the baby is born, if he’s got a job, he’s on the hook for child support.  There is not choice for Vic.

Now, let’s say in the same scenario Vic wants the baby, but the chola ops for an abortion.  Again there there is no choice for Vic.

Does Surly think this is fair?  My lean is towards the ability to forgo parental rights in the event she wants to keep it and he doesn’t but I’m not sure how to execute on that.  In the second scenario I don’t think there is any solution beneficial to the man.

Yes, it is fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SDG said:

For starters; I’m for the most part pro choice (not a fan of late term) so I hope this doesn’t come off differently.

I have a couple questions that I’ve occasionally wondered about and am curious about others opinions.

Let’s say Vic get’s one of gets one of his tinder chola’s pregnant and he wants her to get an abortion but she doesn’t want to.  Even if he offers to pay for the abortion; when the baby is born, if he’s got a job, he’s on the hook for child support.  There is not choice for Vic.

Now, let’s say in the same scenario Vic wants the baby, but the chola ops for an abortion.  Again there there is no choice for Vic.

Does Surly think this is fair?  My lean is towards the ability to forgo parental rights in the event she wants to keep it and he doesn’t but I’m not sure how to execute on that.  In the second scenario I don’t think there is any solution beneficial to the man.

Well, Vic’s not rolling the dice with his health for 9 months + residual effects, so I’d say it looks pretty fair to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Vic is having sex, he's pretty much in charge of whether or not he ejaculates inside the woman.  If he doesn't want to, he doesn't.  If he wants to, he does (perhaps even against her protests).

I think Vic got his time in the sun.  Yes, he could "leak".  Yes, he could be kidnapped, tied up, and forcibly raped.  Other than that, I'm gonna say Vic's decision whether or not to risk being a father is all his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

When Vic is having sex, he's pretty much in charge of whether or not he ejaculates inside the woman.  If he doesn't want to, he doesn't.  If he wants to, he does (perhaps even against her protests).

I think Vic got his time in the sun.  Yes, he could "leak".  Yes, he could be kidnapped, tied up, and forcibly raped.  Other than that, I'm gonna say Vic's decision whether or not to risk being a father is all his own.

It’s really not that simple.  I’ve known dudes with money and the girls openly talk about trying to get pregnant, forgetting to take the pill etc.  In a half joking way, of course...but let’s not act like there’s not a lot of instances where the Mom wants to be a Mom for the financial perks or whatever other perks.  Sad truth.  This shit is always way more complicated then we try to make it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...