|
Repubtards: Government small enough to fit in your pants
So infuriating, there are just not the right words to express how fucked up this is!
Quote:
I thought repubtards wanted government out of people's lives. Thats what they say. How is this not completely totally fucking with a person's life? Now they're telling doctors how to medically determine conception. This is why I hate them so so much. Just a bunch of hypocritical assholes who want to ruin the lives of women. I want to kick them all in the cunt. |
I've some small idea of what abortion will cost one emotionally -- even if you're just the other partner. And the condom broke. (Lube yourself before putting the condom on -- not only is it lots more fun but it prevents you overstretching it.)
Could have been a lot rougher than it was, though -- Mother Nature took a hand. We didn't have to do any deciding. That kind of thing moves me to ask a rather cutting question, MTP: you're so exercised about all this -- just how many abortions have you had? If one or more, were they so very easy as you seem to expect? I'm not registered Republican, but Libertarian, and I'm hardly describable as anti-abortion -- close control of when and how one breeds is desirable. I'm saying it's no easy thing, and not at all light. You've taken as gospel a hitpiece, and the hitpiece mentality found in this cluster of articles may be shown in one of those linked in your linked article, which I quote: Quote:
Not a hit piece -- from the Arizona Republic. |
Quote:
What you really are is a misogynistic bully. Do us all a favor UG - post-abort yourself, would you, dear? You're such a deadly bore. |
Jesus christ, ug. You've outdone yourself. I couldn't believe what I was reading. You and Man Coulter deserve each other.
|
Never ever ever did I say that I thought abortion was an easy decision to make. Neither is having a kid. Its a woman's decision. The only person who should ever know should be her doctor and maybe a counselor (if she wants, it shouldn't be a requirement).
Each woman is different and each woman will have a different emotional experience. Even if I had been through it, I could not relate my experience to someone else's. That is why you and I cannot tell another woman what to do with her body. |
Quote:
UG - how many sperms have you murdered by onanism? You disgusting slimeball. Potential humans, every one you spilled. You should have your nads twisted off. |
I would like to point out one thing: although the legislation is obviously aimed at a particular political goal, one that I disagree with...
Gestational age already was, and always has been, counted from the first day of ovulation. When the doctors say a full-term pregnancy is 40 weeks, they mean 40 weeks from the date of last ovulation. When you go in for your first appointment with your OB, you are a week late on your period, and they say you are "five weeks pregnant." Like I said, I disagree with the larger intention of the law. I am pro-choice. But this clause is not horrifically dramatic or new, it is how doctors have always done it. |
Have to agree with Clod - that's how it's calculated here.
Even if you know that the only intercourse you had since your last period was on a specific date - because it was special and it was in your diary - when it gets to halfway through the next month and you still haven't bled... You go to the doctor and she starts counting from the date of your last period. And you can only get a chemical termination (via Mifeprex) up to 11 weeks. With confusion and self-denial and those extra two weeks added by the Doctor it's easy to slip into a more serious procedure. |
Quote:
Doesn't it go ... menstruation ... two weeks ... ovulation ... two weeks ... menstruation... etc ... ... right? So if you're one week late on your period, you're three weeks past ovulation, not five. Not that I would ever argue with a woman who is a week late on her period. :headshake :lol: |
Gah! That would be some combination of school stress and the skull fracture talking. Everywhere I said "ovulation," I meant "menstruation."
God, I'm so tired. Maybe I'll head over to one of the nothingland threads and tell you guys about the royal butt-fucking-in-the-mouth the school district gave us this weekend... |
Thanks.
Quote:
Isn't that biologically impossible? You cannot possibly be pregnant until the sperm and the egg have met and mingled. There is a strong case to be made that the zygote must also have implanted in the uterus. That sperm isn't even meeting the egg until after ovulation. It just can't happen. That a woman should be pregnant after menstruating but before ovulating is, ahem, inconceivable. Right? |
Well, that's the thing. It's inconvenient to start the clock at fertilization, 2 weeks, because stuff has been happening before that. The egg was actually doing some pre-development as it got ready to be released (something like the "luteal phase," and others, I can't remember.) The uterine wall was thickening, and if it doesn't properly do so, yet a pregnancy still occurs, you have to be able to talk about the developmental stage that went awry and led to the predicament of "not enough uterine wall to properly nourish the developing placenta." The biological error was at negative 1 week?
The woman's body doesn't know if it will or will not get fertilized. It goes through the process every month on the assumption that it will. Necessary steps have to happen before fertilization, even if those steps are completely wasted most months. Is the woman "pregnant" before she's pregnant? Not by my definition, but you have to count those weeks as part of the larger process. |
Quote:
Quote:
Well, if we're looking at the larger process, as well as a thick uterine wall, she's going to need a good wide pelvis. So I figure she's been pregnant since she was about 12. Stuff it. She needs to be a living adult female. Her whole life has been preparing for this. Pregnancy begins at birth. No, wait, conception. The mother's conception. But hang on, that began with the grandmother's conception. Which began with ... Whoahhhh.... inconception. |
Quote:
Usually I find your approach amusing, quaint even at times, but this is just nasty. Setting aside, just for a moment the implications of what you say at a broad gender level, what if the answer was that she had had an abortion? How cruel and 'cutting' would that question be then? You say you aren't a republican, fair enough. But you spout their line often enough to sit at the same table. You say you aren't anti-abortion, but you use the same rhetoric and employ the same basic assumption: women aren't to be trusted with this decision. A clear-headed man (such as yourself) is needed to step in and stop them making silly mistakes through their flippancy. Yech. Sickening. |
Quote:
|
Ok clod, I concede to your superior knowledge of pregnancy. But I'm still annoyed that they are even legislating when the cut off date can be like this. A lot of women don't have regular periods and can easily miss the cut off, or there could be medical conditions of the fetus that aren't discovered until later in the pregnancy. It's still government sticking its nose into women's vaginas and I dont like it.
|
So, what this Arizona law is saying is that, if it is POSSIBLE for a woman to be pregnant (whether or not there is actually a zygote and chemical indicators in blood/urine present), then she legally IS pregnant?
What's next? Jail sentences for women whose bodies self-abort or give birth to stillborn children, because their own bodies killed a Living Human Being With Full Rights and are Crime Scenes? Can you imaging the CSI unit trying to gather that evidence? CSI: Uterus. |
Quote:
And FOR THE RECORD, I have had an abortion. And I've NOT had an abortion and birthed and raised the (unexpected) child, alone. And I've had a baby within a marriage. And I, myself, am adopted. So I think I am pretty fucking qualified to speak to this matter. The government needs to butt the fuck out. So do men who have never and will never experience pregnancy, childbirth and nursing. None of THEM are going to help buy the formula and diapers, find daycare so I can work, or feel the pain of MY loss after a termination. |
Yeah, the whole reason they want to count the weeks is because they're setting a cutoff date for when it is too late to have an abortion. Like I said, I do disagree with their motives.
|
If you don't have a vagina, shut the fuck up. And that includes Gov. Brewer.
If that bitch wants life to begin 2 weeks before conception, maybe we should all start jerking off into baggies and ship them to her so she doesn't have us arrested for mass murder, just abandonment. |
"The government needs to butt the fuck out."
Agreed!
If Miss X is knocked up and wants to abort: abort away! Not my concern (or, responsibility). |
Quote:
|
For the record, I quite agree with Stormy.
I'll take the hit; I knew it would excite anger -- and a few unfounded assumptions while the haters went into their rages. |
You knew it would excite a few unfounded assumptions? So, you must have known what those assumptions would be, otherwise what did you think would be excited? Therefore, the assumptions weren't unfounded; they were laid out there for us dummies to pluck right up. Right?
Alternatively, the "that's what I meant to happen" assertion is coming straight out of your ass. :rolleyes: |
Quote:
|
More from the repubtard files...THIS JUST IN!
Rush Limbaugh: Hurricane Center is ‘Obama’ Quote:
You can't NOT laugh! |
Rush probably just wanted to excite anger and a few unfounded assumptions. :lol:
|
"Uh oh. I agree with Henry."
Hell just got a little colder... ;)
|
REALLY?! I mean...really?! How insane is he going to get before he's put in an insane asylum? Shouldn't he be in a mental hospital rather than have a talk show? Why the fuck do people think this guy is sane?
|
First Akin with his "legitimate rape" bullshit.
Then Missouri GOP Committeewoman Sharon Barnes echoed Akin's statement that very few rapes resulted in pregnancy, adding that "at that point, if God has chosen to bless this person with a life, you don't kill it." Then Thurston Howell's chosen one, Ryan himself weighs in with, "Yeah, well, so, I’m very proud of my pro-life record, and I’ve always adopted the idea, the position that the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life." Nothing personal girls, it's for the children... won't somebody think of the children. Ladies! You got the vote in 1920. You've been the majority since 1945. You better get off your collective butts and do some politicking before kitchen chains, and chastity belts, become mandatory. |
Quote:
|
It's a depressing thought, but generally speaking if you look at any deeply patriarchal society, mothers are often the ones who hold it up.
|
Yup. I remember my first abusive husband, a Saudi, telling me about his mother's advice. She told him to break his wife's spirit completely, then reshape her into what he wanted her to be.
My response was...but then I wouldn't be anything like the woman you married, would I? . I was 18 yrs old. Anyway, a lot of women just can't see past their personal disapproval and narrow-mindedness. |
Slightly OT, but I was reading an article the other day about women who are proud to be housewives and look after their husbands.
I was put off by the passive-aggressive tone TBH. But I did wonder what they were teaching their children. One woman mentioned teaching her daughters cooking and how to make sweet treats for Daddy. Well, that's lovely - of course. And if you want them to grow up into a housewife like you that's also education. But she also had a son. I wonder what she was teaching him? I wonder if he was treated in a similar way to Daddy? I have no personal issues with women who treat their family as their job. Bloody good luck to them, it's not an easy one and it's very important. It's the deification of the breadwinner that makes me cringe slightly. The majority of couples both have to work, and I'm not sure the example is a great one to set when this is likely to be the case. Oh, just as an aside, the three women featured were significantly younger than their spouses. One had married at 19, fresh out of 6th form. Couldn't help thinking that may have been a factor. |
Back in the 60s they started preaching women could have it all. I don't remember anyone pointing out how fucking hard it would be. I'm afraid many girls got the impression it was mandatory to have it all, when they should have noted they may have a choice. Sure a single mom has to, but others can choose to be a homemaker, or a business professional, there's certainly no shame in either choice.
If you do decide you want it all, it may be better not to have it all at once, but rather approach things in secession. The real progress is having choices. |
http://www.tampabaytimesforum.com/ev...ohibited-items
Love the first two on the list Quote:
|
Virtually identical to that of the DNC. This list is compiled by those who are charged with protecting them, not the RNC nor DNC.
Now, what was your point? |
"Whole fruit"...
now why would that be a worry? :lol: |
They did not ban pies?
|
Quote:
I'm lovin' the tw these days. :) |
Quote:
|
They're turning away baseballs, and probably wouldn't let you bring a Chevy in the hall. :haha:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
And a "libertarian" that doesn't understand why women are telling the government to mind their own fucking business. :rolleyes:
|
look up republican hypocrisy in the dictionary, you see this video entry.
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:06 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.