RE: Anti-Choice Legislator Not Hiding True Goals

RE: Anti-Choice Legislator Not Hiding True Goals (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Anti-Choice Legislator Not Hiding True Goals (9/21/2011 6:47:39 PM)
quote: Lol... it's like.. I was fucking this dumb, ugly, and stinking brute... and GOT PREGNANT.. can you believe it? Like what's up with that? Or is it, I fucked this dude and he was like cool and all but two days later i caught him texting with my friend. Fuck that shit. Or maybe, sigh, it's just me. I have a tendency to pick abusive assholes and did IT AGAIN. The bastard would be fertile you know. I'll be more careful next time I pick one. I'll make him wear a rubber damnit. While none of those have any connection any given person's reality, that's exactly what your post brought to mind. And why did Lucy's post bring that to mind? Again, you are laying all the blame on the woman. Do you know the failure rate for BC? 5 in 100. Condom... 11 - 16 per 100. The Sponge... 16 - 32 per 100... Those are the number of pregnancies that can be expected per 100 people who use those products.

StrangerThan -> RE: Anti-Choice Legislator Not Hiding True Goals (9/21/2011 7:15:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Lol... it's like.. I was fucking this dumb, ugly, and stinking brute... and GOT PREGNANT.. can you believe it? Like what's up with that? Or is it, I fucked this dude and he was like cool and all but two days later i caught him texting with my friend. Fuck that shit. Or maybe, sigh, it's just me. I have a tendency to pick abusive assholes and did IT AGAIN. The bastard would be fertile you know. I'll be more careful next time I pick one. I'll make him wear a rubber damnit. While none of those have any connection any given person's reality, that's exactly what your post brought to mind. And why did Lucy's post bring that to mind? Again, you are laying all the blame on the woman. Do you know the failure rate for BC? 5 in 100. Condom... 11 - 16 per 100. The Sponge... 16 - 32 per 100... Those are the number of pregnancies that can be expected per 100 people who use those products. taz, get off your friggin statistics. Her quote was, "Id like to know just how many women abort because the sperm donor is the issue. too many I fear" Because on the surface, it sounds like a Jerry Springer show. I mean, why are you fucking the sperm donor if he's an issue? Like why would I fuck a woman I didn't like, I thought was a royal bitch, I couldn't stand, I thought was crazy.. hell, pick some issue I have with her. If Wilbur or any man had made the same statement in any other context, the thought that came to mind would be exactly what is above. As in, like what, you lost all sense of reason, accountability, and logic because your dick was hard and fucked a crazy bitch? Or you're like a stereotypical TV moron who starts slobbering at the thought? If that's the case, your troubles begin with being an idiot and somewhere along the line there's a glowing signpost that reads "DUDE, you're not getting enough" - which probably points back to the fact you're an idiot. Like I used to tell a friend of mine who couldn't keep his eyes off women's tits, and who couldn't figure out why he could never get a date. Chocolate releases some of the same hormones that sex does. Be an asshole, or an idiot and she can go home with M&M's and leave your sorry ass where you belong. With the guys who talk more about it than actually do it. Seriously.

tazzygirl -> RE: Anti-Choice Legislator Not Hiding True Goals (9/21/2011 7:22:51 PM)
quote: Like why would I fuck a woman I didn't like, I thought was a royal bitch, I couldn't stand, I thought was crazy.. hell, pick some issue I have with her. Because your male. [:D]

farglebargle -> RE: Anti-Choice Legislator Not Hiding True Goals (9/21/2011 7:24:22 PM)
Just putting this out there, but what's the difference between pulling the plug on a coma patient who can't pay the bills and aborting a fetus you can't afford to care for?

Lucylastic -> RE: Anti-Choice Legislator Not Hiding True Goals (9/21/2011 7:25:01 PM)
oh dear god... your on the surface look went deeper than the damn grand canyon..lighten up dude. but way to go to prove a point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! take a deep breath, count to ten and re read what you wrote from a calmer point of view. you are waaaaay oscaring the surface look, oh? and wrong

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Anti-Choice Legislator Not Hiding True Goals (9/21/2011 7:25:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Just putting this out there, but what's the difference between pulling the plug on a coma patient who can't pay the bills and aborting a fetus you can't afford to care for? None. But I'll you didnt really mean "coma"

Lucylastic -> RE: Anti-Choice Legislator Not Hiding True Goals (9/21/2011 7:27:31 PM)
I hope you edit that into something that makes a point?

StrangerThan -> RE: Anti-Choice Legislator Not Hiding True Goals (9/21/2011 7:31:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Like why would I fuck a woman I didn't like, I thought was a royal bitch, I couldn't stand, I thought was crazy.. hell, pick some issue I have with her. Because your male. [:D] Can I jump up and down and scream gender bias? Nah, I'll leave that to someone else. I can't say I never regretted fucking someone. I can say I never regretted children that came from it though. In fact, they are one of the few things good and decent left in life. The feeling has been one of being incredibly lucky to part of that.

tazzygirl -> RE: Anti-Choice Legislator Not Hiding True Goals (9/21/2011 8:25:55 PM)
Sure, go for it. [:D] if it makes you feel better.

Fightdirecto -> RE: Anti-Choice Legislator Not Hiding True Goals (9/22/2011 8:52:13 AM)
Disregarding the arguments about gender-bias, what concerns me is those anti-choice types who want both Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird reversed. Griswold v. Connecticut quote: Griswold v. Connecticut involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception." The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the Connecticut Statute was unconstitutional in 1965...Later decisions by the court extended the principles of Griswold beyond its particular facts. Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) extended its holding to unmarried couples, whereas the "right of privacy" in Griswold only applied to marital relationships. The argument for Eisenstadt was built on the claim that it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to deny unmarried couples the right to use contraception when married couples did have that right (under Griswold). As I wrote in my OP, reversing the Griswold and the Eisendtadt SCOTUS rulings - a goal of some in the anti-choice crowd - would lead to criminalizing the manufacture, possession or use of IUDs, birth control pills and condoms.

tazzygirl -> RE: Anti-Choice Legislator Not Hiding True Goals (9/22/2011 9:34:21 AM)
If men were getting pregnant, BC would be 100% effective.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0390625