Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Legitimate Rape leaves Marks but Not Babies....Follow

#102 Aug 24 2012 at 2:31 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I'll bake you cupcakes! Well actually I'll make apple cinnamon muffins with a brown sugar topping. Is that all right?


No, thank you. I want a nice chocolate cupcake with chocolate icing that has peanut utter mixed in it. Smiley: drool



What words do the peanuts utter in order to make the cupcake so good? Are they magic words, or do they just talk dirty to you?


Smiley: lol

Typing on a phone sucks. Smiley: glare
#103 Aug 24 2012 at 2:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
What words do the peanuts utter in order to make the cupcake so good? Are they magic words, or do they just talk dirty to you?

Muah-wha... Mwuah-muah-whah-mwuah...
Ooohh.. yes, ma'am...
Mwhuah-whah... Whah-mwuah-wah-mwuah...
Oh God, yes...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#104 Aug 24 2012 at 8:35 PM Rating: Good
**
493 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
What words do the peanuts utter in order to make the cupcake so good? Are they magic words, or do they just talk dirty to you?

Muah-wha... Mwuah-muah-whah-mwuah...
Ooohh.. yes, ma'am...
Mwhuah-whah... Whah-mwuah-wah-mwuah...
Oh God, yes...


This made me think "dirty peanuts". So I google "dirty peanuts". It seems to be a real thing.
Still want those cupcakes?
#105 Aug 25 2012 at 2:15 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Belkira wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I'll bake you cupcakes! Well actually I'll make apple cinnamon muffins with a brown sugar topping. Is that all right?


No, thank you. I want a nice chocolate cupcake with chocolate icing that has peanut utter mixed in it. Smiley: drool


I actually have some of those. The bad news is they won't travel well.

Would taking pictures of me eating them help?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#106 Aug 25 2012 at 1:56 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I'll bake you cupcakes! Well actually I'll make apple cinnamon muffins with a brown sugar topping. Is that all right?


No, thank you. I want a nice chocolate cupcake with chocolate icing that has peanut utter mixed in it. Smiley: drool


I actually have some of those. The bad news is they won't travel well.

Would taking pictures of me eating them help?


Yes.

I almost bought the mix for them at the store last night, but then I decided it's better if I don't eat an entire batch of cupcakes in one sitting.
#107 Aug 26 2012 at 12:34 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Belkira wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I'll bake you cupcakes! Well actually I'll make apple cinnamon muffins with a brown sugar topping. Is that all right?


No, thank you. I want a nice chocolate cupcake with chocolate icing that has peanut utter mixed in it. Smiley: drool


I actually have some of those. The bad news is they won't travel well.

Would taking pictures of me eating them help?


Yes.

I almost bought the mix for them at the store last night, but then I decided it's better if I don't eat an entire batch of cupcakes in one sitting.

Hm...if you move this comment to the fat fucks thread I'll take that challenge.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#108 Aug 27 2012 at 7:20 AM Rating: Good
******
49,893 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
The bad news is they won't travel well.
Vacuum seal and you can send them anywhere.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#109 Aug 27 2012 at 1:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Philadelphia Inquirer wrote:
HARRISBURG - Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Tom Smith inadvertently waded into the war of words over rape and abortion on Monday - the very issue his party has been trying to steer clear of these days.
[...]
Smith waded into the territory when asked how he would tell a daughter or granddaughter to keep a child of rape against her will.

The Republican said: "I lived something similar to that with my own family, and she chose life, and I commend her for that. ... Don't get me wrong, it wasn't rape."

Asked to describe what, in that situation, was similar to having a baby from rape, he said: "Having a baby out of wedlock."

When asked whether that was similar to rape, Smith said: " No, no, no, but well put yourself in a father's position. Yes, I mean it is similar."

Smiley: facepalm
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#110 Aug 27 2012 at 2:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
****
4,042 posts
Republicans: Babies conceived out of wedlock aren't real babies, therefore it's not really abortion.

Keeping a baby conceived out of wedlock is just about as shameful as keeping a baby from a rapist - so pretty much if my mom and your mom and basically everyone else's mom has to carry your unwanted *** to term, with the seething hatred of Jesus boring in to her, then you can suck it up and keep your rape baby to term.
#111gbaji, Posted: Aug 27 2012 at 5:26 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Wow, really? It's "similar" in that both are situations in which women might choose to have an abortion. Let's not forget that this is ultimately about abortion, not rape.
#112 Aug 27 2012 at 5:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Let's not forget that this is ultimately about abortion, not rape.

The two are intertwined given that rape is the most commonly given exemption when discussing abortion. The reason why being the weight of the rape experience. The GOP is trying to systematically diminish the impact of rape (not "legitimate", not "forcible", it's like a baby out of wedlock) in their quest to eliminate abortion.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#113 Aug 27 2012 at 5:43 PM Rating: Good
****
7,861 posts
Even though I am firmly opposed to abortion, I do see circumstances where it should not only be necessary, but recommended. The rape scenario is one of those circumstances.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#114 Aug 27 2012 at 5:49 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,934 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Philadelphia Inquirer wrote:
HARRISBURG - Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Tom Smith inadvertently waded into the war of words over rape and abortion on Monday - the very issue his party has been trying to steer clear of these days.
[...]
Smith waded into the territory when asked how he would tell a daughter or granddaughter to keep a child of rape against her will.

The Republican said: "I lived something similar to that with my own family, and she chose life, and I commend her for that. ... Don't get me wrong, it wasn't rape."

Asked to describe what, in that situation, was similar to having a baby from rape, he said: "Having a baby out of wedlock."

When asked whether that was similar to rape, Smith said: " No, no, no, but well put yourself in a father's position. Yes, I mean it is similar."

Smiley: facepalm


I can't help but think he is confusing "Having a baby out of wedlock" and "A woman having a baby with a man who is not her husband while married". Mainly because of that last sentence, it seems to me that the only way for it to make sense is if he is thinking that either way the father has to deal with a child that isn't his...
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#115 Aug 27 2012 at 6:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
gbaji wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Republicans: Babies conceived out of wedlock aren't real babies, therefore it's not really abortion.

Keeping a baby conceived out of wedlock is just about as shameful as keeping a baby from a rapist - so pretty much if my mom and your mom and basically everyone else's mom has to carry your unwanted *** to term, with the seething hatred of Jesus boring in to her, then you can suck it up and keep your rape baby to term.


Wow, really? It's "similar" in that both are situations in which women might choose to have an abortion. Let's not forget that this is ultimately about abortion, not rape.


gbaji and Alma: demeaning women one moronic statement at a time.
#116 Aug 27 2012 at 6:23 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,042 posts
gbaji wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Republicans: Babies conceived out of wedlock aren't real babies, therefore it's not really abortion.

Keeping a baby conceived out of wedlock is just about as shameful as keeping a baby from a rapist - so pretty much if my mom and your mom and basically everyone else's mom has to carry your unwanted *** to term, with the seething hatred of Jesus boring in to her, then you can suck it up and keep your rape baby to term.


Wow, really? It's "similar" in that both are situations in which women might choose to have an abortion. Let's not forget that this is ultimately about abortion, not rape.


I apologize, gbaji, I must have misread the thread title.
#117gbaji, Posted: Aug 27 2012 at 7:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That's a valid position to argue, but the example in this case doesn't support it at all (which was my point). The guy mentioned a situation in which a family member could have chosen to have an abortion. A situation which is vastly more commonly used to make such a decision. And he related the fact that this family member chose to have the baby. He clearly stated that it wasn't the same as a case of rape, but it was "similar". Is it really that hard to noodle out what he was talking about?
#118 Aug 27 2012 at 7:12 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,893 posts
gbaji wrote:
Just seems bizarre to leap to the conclusion that conservatives therefore equate out of wedlock pregnancies with being raped.
Philadelphia Inquirer wrote:
Asked to describe what, in that situation, was similar to having a baby from rape, he (Tom Smith) said: "Having a baby out of wedlock."
Reading: It's that important.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#119 Aug 27 2012 at 7:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
Quote:
The guy mentioned a situation in which a family member could have chosen to have an abortion.


Sure, except that he didn't answer the question he was asked. I'm sure everyone would prefer that any given pregnant woman would be amenable to keeping the pregnancy intact and raising a child she could love and for whom she could provide. Ideally, abortion should be rare because the need for it should be rare.

The question he was asked was specifically about a pregnancy that is the result of a rape, and his response was "well, I knew a woman who was pregnant once and she kept the baby, so that's sorta the same thing, right?"
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#120 Aug 27 2012 at 7:21 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
Kastigir wrote:
Even though I am firmly opposed to abortion, I do see circumstances where it should not only be necessary, but recommended. The rape scenario is one of those circumstances.


I tend to agree, but I can also respect those who see the issue differently. For someone who believes that a human fetus is a living person and should have the same rights as you or I, it's quite logical to not make the sorts of exceptions we're talking about. For that person, so accept such an exception would effectively mean that the circumstances of your conception determine whether you get certain rights in our society. We don't deny someone a single right after they are born if they happen to be the child of incest or rape, so why deny the right to life to them before being born? Again, assuming someone who believes that such a right should exist prior to birth, that is.

IMO, the problem with Akin's statement wasn't so much with the statement itself (although it was at the least horribly stated), but the fact that it's not really his position. He was trying to sidestep the issue of the exception by trying to argue that it doesn't happen very often (a dumb argument all by itself), when he should have simply stated that he doesn't believe that an unborn child's rights should be any different based on how it was conceived. It would have been the more honest answer.


Additionally, I also can see that as a counter to Joph's argument, many on the left use the rape exemption as a lever to ensure that elective abortions are kept as widely available as possible. More or less for exactly the reason that it places the anti-abortion crowd in the position of either assailing the otherwise popularly held exceptions for rape and incest *or* accepting what really is a hypocritical position. What they really want is to pass some sort of legislation (which would require a constitutional amendment given the Roe v. Wade decision) codifying a fetus' right to life. The exception cases make that more difficult, and I imagine there's lots of disagreement on how you proceed without dealing with those.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#121 Aug 27 2012 at 7:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
The two are intertwined given that rape is the most commonly given exemption when discussing abortion.
Ok. But the overwhelming number of abortions (or otherwise viable pregnancies) are performed, not because a woman was raped, but because she's unmarried and doesn't want the child. Kinda depends on how you're looking at the issue, doesn't it?

That has nothing to do with rape exemptions in abortion bans. The question came up because he was being asked about abortion exemptions. He opposed them and gave the rationale that it was similar to having a child out of wedlock. Which is an asinine comparison on multiple levels.
Quote:
That's a valid position to argue, but the example in this case doesn't support it at all (which was my point).

Using an experience where a woman had a child out of (presumably consensual) wedlock to help explain his opposition to rape exemptions doesn't support the idea that he's diminishing the impact of rape as a reason for an exemption?

I can't say I agree with you there.

Edited, Aug 27th 2012 8:25pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#122gbaji, Posted: Aug 27 2012 at 7:29 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) He's clearly speaking of the similarly in terms of how he would counsel a daughter or granddaughter who had been impregnated period. Regardless of how. Given that his position against an exception for rape and incest was not in question, it's staggering that anyone could fail to understand his meaning. To him, he would give the same advice: Have the baby. He very very clearly believes that the life of the unborn child is just as valuable either way.
#123 Aug 27 2012 at 7:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
IMO, the problem with Akin's statement wasn't so much with the statement itself (although it was at the least horribly stated), but the fact that it's not really his position.

Nonsense. He gave a multi-part answer about how a doctor told him this is true and you can totally look it up because women don't get pregnant from "legitimate" rape. You don't accidentally say that; he was trying to convince other people using this doctor as an authority that you can't become pregnant from "legitimate" rape so we don't need an abortion exemption for it.

And, as he already showed through his sponsorship of legislation, he doesn't believe that all those forms of so-called "rape" that don't leave sufficient mark actually count as rape.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#124gbaji, Posted: Aug 27 2012 at 7:33 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) He didn't. He clearly explained that he believes in the right of a fetus to live no matter how it came to be conceived. Thus, the two situations are "similar" in that his answer and position would be the same. Does that mean he thinks that rape is no more traumatic a condition than being pregnant out of wedlock? Of course not! It's frankly an insane conclusion to leap to when a much more obvious one is sitting right in front of you.
#125 Aug 27 2012 at 7:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
"That's similar to rape?" a reporter asked.

"No, no, no," said Smith, who was referring to a daughter's decision to have a child outside marriage. Then he added, "But, well, put yourself in a father's position. Yes, I mean, it is similar."
gbaji wrote:
it's staggering that anyone could fail to understand his meaning.

Indeed. Smiley: laugh

Edited, Aug 27th 2012 8:36pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#126gbaji, Posted: Aug 27 2012 at 7:41 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That's a matter of semantics. You know my position on this as well. Regardless of label, I think there's a huge difference between forcible rape, non-forcible date rape, and statutory rape and that it does the entire issue a disservice to pretend they are all identical. Has nothing to do with the abortion issue, but despite his poor choice of words (and silly intent to argue that because something may or may not happen very often, we can ignore it legally), his broader position on the issue of different types of rape needing to be treated differently, as well as the trend by some to intentionally work to avoid doing so, is perfectly valid.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 50 All times are in CST
Kavekkk, Anonymous Guests (49)