(G) Somewhere, Jsc just got a boner (G)

[Van]

So now we have poptart demanding hard facts and statistical certification of the unknowable.

Yes, you read that correctly. He of the Constant Spin and Unshakable Blind Faith in the Wizards of Hogwarts is slamming his menses-soaked little Tom Cruise fist down while braying, "I demand PROOF!"

And still he will post in the very next thread that he's perfectly fine with the concept of eight hundred-year-old humans, talking snakes, and female clones springing from the ribs of men born of dust.

That is what this place has come to.

[poptart]

I'm sure nobody notices that you repeatedly want to change the subject, Van.

Official data underrepresents actual crime. This is not up for dispute even though you seem to pretend otherwise.

I do?

I have no doubt that rapes occur at a higher rate than the official rate.

M Club, can you tell me why would a prostitute or a john would ever report their criminal sexual activity activity to the police?

[M Club]

M Club, can you tell me why would a prostitute or a john would ever report their criminal sexual activity activity to the police?

Do police ever make arrests for prostitution? Are those arrests counted in the official numbers?

I didn't realize police statistics were contingent upon how they were made aware of those crimes.

[poptart]

One word would have been enough.

No.


Prostitution sex -- and rape -- are acts which are very seldom stopped in progress by the police.

Only the dimmest bulb would think we can get a basic idea about the amount of prostitution that is taking place by counting the number of times police catch the act taking place.

However we know that women who have been raped DO report their violations to the police in very large numbers.

Alleged victims who do not report ---> are subject to rightful doubt.

There are two sides to every story and it's irresponsible to take one side - with no real evidence and without hearing the other side of the story - and running with it.

[poptart]

Akin is the devil?

[M Club]

Only the dimmest bulb would think we can get a basic idea about the amount of prostitution that is taking place by counting the number of times police catch the act taking place.

However we know that women who have been raped DO report their violations to the police in very large numbers.

Then you're running on just a watt or two if you think the fact that many people report being rape speaks to the extent it actually happens. I see you stringing the pieces together. Almost there, champ.

Alleged victims who do not report ---> are subject to rightful doubt.

Does the Bible appeal to you because it justifies your barbarian thinking, or are you barbarian because of the Bible? Aside from your predictable "women ask for it" stance, whom do you think gets raped and why? I mean, why shouldn't we doubt the teenage girl who failed to report a rape after being slut shamed by douchebag jocks? Or the poor Mexican lady who barely speaks any English? Or the 10-year-old Amish girl continuously raped by her older brother? Or the high school dropout with three kids who's regularly beaten and raped by her drunk husband? Or even the college girl who went to the police station to report being raped but was greeted by some fat cop who looks just like you with "what were you wearing?"

It's a power issue. Men rape women who are afraid to report them. Same shit happens with domestic abuse. Don't understand what's so hard to understand about that other than you said something contrary before and are going to go down firing.

There are two sides to every story and it's irresponsible to take one side - with no real evidence and without hearing the other side of the story - and running with it.

Sound a bit pro-choice here, brah.

[poptart]

I've not said word one about Christianity or the Bible, and yet you and Van keep obsessing over it in this thread.

Does mvscal strike you as a thumper, too?

Then you're running on just a watt or two if you think the fact that many people report being rape speaks to the extent it actually happens.

Haven't I already said at least a couple of time that I think rape occurs more frequently than the official stats say?

Aside from your predictable "women ask for it" stance...

Link?

I mean, why shouldn't we doubt the teenage girl who failed to report a rape after being slut shamed by douchebag jocks? Or the poor Mexican lady who barely speaks any English? Or the 10-year-old Amish girl continuously raped by her older brother? Or the high school dropout with three kids who's regularly beaten and raped by her drunk husband? Or even the college girl who went to the police station to report being raped but was greeted by some fat cop who looks just like you with "what were you wearing?"

None of which proves your fantasy that the real rape rate is 6 or 7 times the reported rate.

[R-Jack]

It's time for God's people to come out of the closet

[jiminphilly]

Is that JTR at the .21 mark on the far left? That fat fuck discovered time travel!

[Smackie Chan]

I don't think you or anyone else would argue against the assertion that rape is substantially underreported -

How would you or anyone else know with any degree of certainty?

We can't with a high degree of certainty know what the exact numbers are, but that's really not the point, which is to obtain enough information to approximate as closely as possible what the true figures are, knowing they'll never be exact. Same reason political polls are taken, with the primary difference being that one is forward-looking (“For whom will you vote?”), while the other is historical (“Have you ever been raped, and if so, did you report it to the police?”) When conducting such surveys, one must assume that the participants are being truthful, or include in the computations some factor (based on history) that smoothes out expected deception. I’m sure you’re aware of statistical methods used to select representative random samples of the general population and assign margins of error, which concedes that the results won’t be exact.

Some common sense must also come into play. Why would anyone feel the need to conduct a study to determine the extent to which rape is underreported? It would either start with a question (Are all rapes reported to police, and if not, why?), or a hypothesis (Rape is an underreported crime), and work from there. Why might anyone think it is underreported? For the reasons Van and countless others have cited, such as the victims’ reluctance to have their personal lives and sexual history essentially put on trial concurrent with the defendants, fear of reprisal from the rapist for reporting it if it’s an acquaintance rape, lack of confidence in the judicial system to convict and/or adequately punish the rapist, and not wanting to relive the experience by having to detail it and face cross-examination. Common sense would dictate that any or all of these reasons, among others, would reasonably be expected to keep at least a few women from reporting to police that they’ve been raped.

But common sense isn’t scientific, so empirical data must be collected. One can argue about the methodologies used or the accuracy of the results, but the fact is that claiming rape is significantly underreported is not an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy since it is not based solely on most people believing it. It’s based on studies and collected data, which, again, can be called into question, but is a more reliable and accurate indicator of where the truth actually lies than “because everybody says so” or police report data.

Even so, different studies will yield different results. I used 85% as an estimate of the rate of unreported rapes in this country based on what was found in England. Turns out that may not have been a good estimate. Other sources cite the 60-70% range as being closer to the truth, although at least one source puts the number close to what I used (84%). Still, even if we err on the conservative side and use 50% or 40% or even 30% as the rate of unreported rape, I would characterize any of those as "significant" or "substantial." Would you?

Rape is called "the most underreported violent crime in America." In a large national survey of American women, only 16% of the rapes (approximately one out of every six) had ever been reported to the police.

Rape in America: A Report to the Nation, National Victim Center, 1992

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many surveys have been conducted to determine the prevalence and incidence of rape and sexual assault. The differences in findings across these various surveys are related to how rape and sexual assault are defined, characteristics of the sample selected for the study, screening questions, interviewer training and techniques, and other methodological and procedural issues. However, in virtually every victimization survey conducted, the number of unreported rapes and sexual assaults far exceeds those that are reported to authorities.

http://www.911rape.org/facts-quotes/statistics

Of the roughly 39 percent of rapes that are reported to police in the United States each year, there is only a 16.3 percent chance that the rapist will be successfully prosecuted and end up in prison. If we include the number of rapes that occur in the United States each year and are not reported at all —61 percent — then only 6 percent of rapists will ever spend a day in jail.

“Reporting to Police,” Washington, DC: Rape Abuse and Incest National Network, 2008, page 2

http://nwhn.org/underreported-rape-fail ... ice-system

Feel free to doubt the validity of the findings (is the rate of reported rapes 16%, 39%, or something else?), but the claim of rape being substantially underreported cannot be simply dismissed as an example of argumentum ad populum.

[Van]

Haven't changed the subject once, pop. From the outset my chosen topic here has been clear: Akin is a fucking moron for believing that "legitimate rape" (a misogynistic enough term as it is) causes pregnancy less often than other forms of sex, and that anyone who believes such primitive nonsense (mvscal) is a fucking tool. Additionally, I've stated that rape goes vastly underreported even as I admitted to having no proof regarding the true extent of it, since it's unknowable.

Oh, and along the way I've also placed you as the accuser on trial, the same as you immediately do to women at the mere mention of rape.

Lastly, I've continued to say that a woman's decision regarding her own body is hers and hers alone, and it doesn't matter what sort of rape caused her pregnancy. In fact, it doesn't matter why she became pregnant at all. Nothing to do with her pregnancy is anyone else's business, least of all women-loathing cunts like you who would never in a million years allow themselves to be forced into doing things with their own bodies against their will.

[Van]

But then we already knew that, KC. pop is hellbent on proving it every damn day.

[Goober McTuber]

And if a rape victim does decide not to terminate her pregnancy, we certainly need to protect the parental rights of the rapist.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/22/opinion/p ... ?hpt=hp_c2

[Van]

That is truly disgusting.

[Derron]

Channel 4 report just said this idiocy could cause a 10% vote swing

11% and counting.

[poptart]

Smackie, if we want to take a relatively HIGH side estimate of unreported rape - and say it's 70%, that would mean that instead of 95,000 rapes occurring a year, 316,000 are really occurring.

In this HIGH side estimate scenario, a bit over 3 times the official number of rapes are occurring.


But Van says that more than 7 times the official number of 95,000 are occurring.

And if we take a conservative fantasy scenario of his, and say rapes occur at 8 times the official number, this would mean that he thinks (conservatively) that 760,000 rapes are occurring yearly.

This also means that he thinks that almost 90% of rapes go unreported. lol

He has NO basis for making such an outlandish claim.

He's yappin' a bunch of silly talk and as I noted in my courtroom hypothetical, he and M Club deserve not much more than a few healthy...

BWAAAA HAHAHAHA's.

women-loathing cunts like you

Women love me and I love them. :wink:

Fun melt, though.

Oh, and along the way I've also placed you as the accuser on trial, the same as you immediately do to women at the mere mention of rape.

Is that what I do?
Place women on trial at the mere mention of rape?

Grow that nose.

No, I said when we have NO evidence, other than a supposed check in a box on a piece of paper, we don't know for sure if a rape really occurred.

Nobody knows, and yet you irresponsibly take that check in the box and run with it... because it fits the agenda that you want to push.

Foolish.



KC Scrot,

You plucked a comment, brought it into an entirely different context, and made a fool of yourself.

Human trafficking has a victim.
Prostitution, in and of itself, does not.

If M Club wanted to use human trafficking as an example, I would have responded to human trafficking.
He did not, so I did not.

Dumb@ss.

[Bizzarofelice]

a whole lot of words. fuck. now I got to commit myself to reading all that?



so who wrote it?



poptah?



yeah, no need to read it.

[Van]

pop, what part of probably/likely do you not get? I never said any specific number is correct. I said the number is unknowable.

And do I think it's possible that 90% of all rapes aren't included in police statistics? Yep, I do. I'm not saying it as if it's a fact, but it's certainly possible. Most women do not report being raped. Parse that number any way you wish. It won't change a thing.

The issue isn't what percentage of women report being raped. The issue is whether rape is any less likely than normal sex to lead to pregnancy, which it most certainly is not. The issue is whether the type of rape a woman endured even matters, which it doesn't. The issue is whether anyone has any business questioning how she got pregnant when it comes time for her to make any decision regarding her own body, which they don't.

All your arguments are utterly meaningless.

[M Club]

I've not said word one about Christianity or the Bible, and yet you and Van keep obsessing over it in this thread.

You've typecast yourself, not to mention your range of thought is severely limited.

Then you're running on just a watt or two if you think the fact that many people report being rape speaks to the extent it actually happens.

Haven't I already said at least a couple of time that I think rape occurs more frequently than the official stats say?

Then resume acting as if the only data we're allowed to consider are official police statistics because there's obviously some nefarious reason that many women choose not to report being raped or assaulted.

I mean, why shouldn't we doubt the teenage girl who failed to report a rape after being slut shamed by douchebag jocks? Or the poor Mexican lady who barely speaks any English? Or the 10-year-old Amish girl continuously raped by her older brother? Or the high school dropout with three kids who's regularly beaten and raped by her drunk husband? Or even the college girl who went to the police station to report being raped but was greeted by some fat cop who looks just like you with "what were you wearing?"

None of which proves your fantasy that the real rape rate is 6 or 7 times the reported rate.

My fantasy? Rape is severely underreported. I have no idea how much, nor have I claimed any specific number. The only reason you keep harping on this point is because you don't even know what you're arguing about anymore.

[poptart]

The issue is whether the type of rape a woman endured even matters, which it doesn't. The issue is whether anyone has any business questioning how she got pregnant when it comes time for her to make any decision regarding her own body, which they don't.

The issue is, pro-butchering people seek to inflate rape pregnancy numbers because they want to use those numbers as ammunition for their argument that abortion needs to be kept legal.

Here we have the AJoOG said there are 32,000 rape pregnancies each year, and using their 5% of rape victims get pregnant 'finding,' they are thereby claiming that 640,000 rapes occur each year.

But the known number of total rapes is just 95,000.

You want to believe the AJoOG's HIGHLY inflated number - with no known FACTS to back it up.
It's based on a survey.

Myself, I don't buy in that way.

How about if the women surveyed give us the names of the men who supposedly raped them - and we just go and survey those men and see what numbers we come up with?

haha

As I said, chatter.

Then resume acting as if the only data we're allowed to consider are official police statistics because there's obviously some nefarious reason that many women choose not to report being raped or assaulted.

Why do you persist in applying takes to me which I have never offered? lol

There is no question that there are real reasons why rape goes unreported and as I've said now... repeatedly, I have no doubt the 95,000 official number is less than what the actual number is.

But when you want to go off into ~CUCKOO~ land and say that the real number is 6 or 7 times that much, I'm sorry, I'm not IN.

My own speculation is that the real number might be closer to 200,000+ a year.

But, I dunno.


And YES, M Club, you DID say you think the number is as high as the AJoOG said, you joke of a liar.

I asked you, "If 4008 random women are taken, how many do you think would get raped over a 3 year period?"

And you said, "608."

You AGREED with the number the AJoOG gives.

Cause and effect, imbecile

Yes, yes.

Because we know that all prostitutes are victims of human trafficking.

[M Club]

No, I said when we have NO evidence, other than a supposed check in a box on a piece of paper, we don't know for sure if a rape really occurred.

Nobody knows, and yet you irresponsibly take that check in the box and run with it... because it fits the agenda that you want to push.

Foolish.

Of course a drawback to victimization surveys is that people are allowed to interpret events as they please. I've never claimed their numbers are entirely accurate, just that they point to rape as underreported. Of course, only a dipshit like you would distill numbers from 50,000 households over a three-year period into some mock courtroom scene wholly unrelated to anything Van or I have said. People are asked whether they've been raped or not, not to make accusations against specific people.

KC Scrot,

You plucked a comment, brought it into an entirely different context, and made a fool of yourself.

Human trafficking has a victim.
Prostitution, in and of itself, does not.

If M Club wanted to use human trafficking as an example, I would have responded to human trafficking.
He did not, so I did not.

Dumb@ss.

KCS picked up on a tangential point. That happens in discussions. Pity for you that you need everything dumbed down to one thing at a time. And while prostitution was never my focus - the disconnect between official police data and what happens in the real world was - he nevertheless has a point that many sex workers are coerced into the industry against their will, which most of us would call victimization. Unsurprising that you wouldn't.

[Van]

No one cares whether you, poptart, are "IN," nor does it matter whether you buy any reported-rapes estimate you can find. Nothing you think matters, except as a means of bolstering a woman's argument that dirtclods like you have no business telling her what she needs to do with her own body.

[poptart]

Let’s consider another example. Let’s have a mother and her very sick 10 year old child. In this example, the child has kidney failure and is certain to die unless the child receives a transplant. After a long search, the mother is the only person who is a match. But the mother does not want to give up her kidney. Should she be forced to do so?

Jsc, my answer is no, the mother shouldn't be forced to give up her kidney.

What is the difference? You are willing to force a woman to remain pregnant and give birth to save a (potential) life, but are not willing to force a mother to undergo the transplant to save an actual life. Why one and not the other? Would your answer be different if all the mother had to do was donate blood instead of a kidney?

I don't think she should be forced to donate blood, either.
I would assume that nearly any mother would willingly donate her blood in such a case and I also think that the pct. of mothers who would willingly donate their own kidney in such a case would be very high.
But I find no Constitutional authority by which any citizen is to be required to give up a body part... or even give up blood against their will.


You know my position.

The fetus is a life, it is helpless life, and it ought to be respected and protected as best as possible.

The woman willingly allowed the life to begin and she has a moral duty to carry that life to term.

The slaughtering of helpless fetuses should not be sanctioned by the state.

Of course a drawback to victimization surveys is that people are allowed to interpret events as they please. I've never claimed their numbers are entirely accurate

haha
You agreed with the OJoOG's numbers so you can stop fluttering around, princess.


If you wanted to ask me about human trafficking, you should have done that.

[M Club]

The issue is, pro-butchering people seek to inflate rape pregnancy numbers because they want to use those numbers as ammunition for their argument that abortion needs to be kept legal.

Conventiently leaving out the part where patriarchal anti-choice sorts deflate the rape pregnancy numbers because they want to use those numbers as ammunition for their arguments that government should have control over a woman's body.

Then resume acting as if the only data we're allowed to consider are official police statistics because there's obviously some nefarious reason that many women choose not to report being raped or assaulted.

Why do you persist in applying takes to me which I have never offered? lol

There is no question that there are real reasons why rape goes unreported and as I've said now... repeatedly, I have no doubt the 95,000 official number is less than what the actual number is.

But when you want to go off into ~CUCKOO~ land and say that the real number is 6 or 7 times that much, I'm sorry, I'm not IN.

My own speculation is that the real number might be closer to 200,000+ a year.

But, I dunno.

I'm not applying any takes to you. It's the baseline you constantly reference every time someone throws out an estimation of actual rapes.

Your own speculation. And you think we're cuckoo for lending weight to controlled studies?

And YES, M Club, you DID say you think the number is as high as the AJoOG said, you joke of a liar.

I asked you, "If 4008 random women are taken, how many do you think would get raped over a 3 year period?"

And you said, "608."

You AGREED with the number the AJoOG gives.

As if we needed further proof you're in over your head. You asked and I did the math. Did I agree? Why don't you go back and find where I said that. I'll save you the time and just tell you I have no reason to doubt their results but that I treat them only as an estimate.

[poptart]

The issue is, pro-butchering people seek to inflate rape pregnancy numbers because they want to use those numbers as ammunition for their argument that abortion needs to be kept legal.

Conventiently leaving out the part where patriarchal anti-choice sorts deflate the rape pregnancy numbers because they want to use those numbers as ammunition for their arguments that government should have control over a woman's body.

Are you on dope?[/Mr. Hand]

Can you show me where I have deflated rape-pregnancy numbers?

The number we have is 95,000 and I've INFLATED that by saying I believe the number is upward of 200,000+.

Why do you keep shitting on yourself?

As if we needed further proof you're in over your head. You asked and I did the math. Did I agree? Why don't you go back and find where I said that. I'll save you the time and just tell you I have no reason to doubt their results but that I treat them only as an estimate.

You're a ridiculous liar - as has been shown over and over on this board.

Page 2...

To begin with, out of 4008 random women, how many do you think get raped over the course of a three year period?

When I asked the question, you quoted it, dodged it completely, and then said something else.


So then I said again on page 2...

if 4008 random women were chosen, how many do you think would get raped over a three year period?

Your answer: 680, apparently. Whoooo, math.





M Club, you're a liar, you have no credibility, and as I've said before on this board - you're a very big joke.

[poptart]

But I find no Constitutional authority by which any citizen is to be required to give up a body part... or even give up blood against their will.

Have you found Constitutional authority by which any citizen is to be required to remain pregnant and give birth against her will?

That's sort of the whole point.

Women were required to carry a child to birth prior to Roe v. Wade, weren't they?

Large numbers of people do not agree that the Roe v. Wade ruling was correct.

[M Club]

The issue is, pro-butchering people seek to inflate rape pregnancy numbers because they want to use those numbers as ammunition for their argument that abortion needs to be kept legal.

Conventiently leaving out the part where patriarchal anti-choice sorts deflate the rape pregnancy numbers because they want to use those numbers as ammunition for their arguments that government should have control over a woman's body.

Are you on dope?[/Mr. Hand]

Can you show me where I have deflated rape-pregnancy numbers?

The number we have is 95,000 and I've INFLATED that by saying I believe the number is upward of 200,000+.

Why do you keep shitting on yourself?

As if this argument isn't about a douchebag Christer on the same team as you making some psuedo-scientific claim about reproductive defenses against rape. Told you you don't even know what you're arguing about.

And who gives a fuck what number you think it is. You're just some clown making guesses based on some prayer you lifted up to a dead homo.

As if we needed further proof you're in over your head. You asked and I did the math. Did I agree? Why don't you go back and find where I said that. I'll save you the time and just tell you I have no reason to doubt their results but that I treat them only as an estimate.

You're a ridiculous liar - as has been shown over and over on this board.

Page 2...

To begin with, out of 4008 random women, how many do you think get raped over the course of a three year period?

When I asked the question, you quoted it, dodged it completely, and then said something else.


So then I said again on page 2...

if 4008 random women were chosen, how many do you think would get raped over a three year period?

Your answer: 680, apparently. Whoooo, math.


M Club, you're a liar, you have no credibility, and as I've said before on this board - you're a very big joke.

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....

........ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....

....ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha........ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha......ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....

STUDY DESIGN:A national probability sample of 4008 adult American women took part in a 3-year longitudinal survey that assessed the prevalence and incidence of rape and related physical and mental health outcomes.

RESULTS:The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. Among 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy, the majority occurred among adolescents and resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator. Only 11.7% of these victims received immediate medical attention after the assault, and 47.1% received no medical attention related to the rape. A total 32.4% of these victims did not discover they were pregnant until they had already entered the second trimester; 32.2% opted to keep the infant whereas 50% underwent abortion and 5.9% placed the infant for adoption; an additional 11.8% had spontaneous abortion.

Let's see...4008 women...34 cases of rape-related pregnancy account for 5% of rape victims....20 x 34 = 680...answered your question, moron.

Lucky for you your mom didn't abort when she found out she had a Down's baby. Any other stupid for us?

[poptart]

As if this argument isn't about a douchebag Christer on the same team as you making some psuedo-scientific claim about reproductive defenses against rape. Told you you don't even know what you're arguing about.

You're lying again... because that's what liars do.

I have not argued even one word in defense of Akin's dumb 'scientific' claim about the body's 'natural' defense against rape.

NOTHING.

In fact, the only time I mentioned his comments (page2), I called them awkward and stupid.

I posted initially in this thread as a response to Van posting the OJoOG's survey info - and that's been what I've been talking about throughout.

Let's see...4008 women...34 cases of rape-related pregnancy account for 5% of rape victims....20 x 34 = 680...answered your question, moron.

lol

We can both READ the results of their survey, numbnuts - and I didn't ask you to recite their findings.

I asked YOU how many women (out of 4008 random) YOU think would get raped over the course of a three year period.

To begin with, out of 4008 random women, how many do you think get raped over the course of a three year period?

if 4008 random women were chosen, how many do you think would get raped over a three year period?

You agreed with their 608 number.

Unless you didn't?

Unless maybe you did?

Unless...


Yeah, you're the #1 'tard.

[smackaholic]

Let’s consider another example. Let’s have a mother and her very sick 10 year old child. In this example, the child has kidney failure and is certain to die unless the child receives a transplant. After a long search, the mother is the only person who is a match. But the mother does not want to give up her kidney. Should she be forced to do so?

Jsc, my answer is no, the mother shouldn't be forced to give up her kidney.

What is the difference? You are willing to force a woman to remain pregnant and give birth to save a (potential) life, but are not willing to force a mother to undergo the transplant to save an actual life. Why one and not the other? Would your answer be different if all the mother had to do was donate blood instead of a kidney?

Of course it could, you fool.

Loosing a kidney presents a very real, long term risk. I can't imagine there is a mother or father out there that wouldn't give both kidneys, but, if they did, it would almost be understandable.

Carrying a baby to term, that YOU conceived due to activities YOU took part in, does not create a substantial life long risk. And if it did, the other side could easily point out the very real possibility of life long mental anguish that comes with the realization that you whacked your fukking kid before it even had a chance.

My personal position is that 1st trimester abortions should remain legal, for purely pragmatic reasons, but, stupid fukking morons with extreme pro-abortion arguments just drive me towards the other idiot extremists.

[Felix]

We truly deserve to have a giant ass comet come and obliterate us.

most factual statement in this thread....December 21st is right around the corner

[smackaholic]

We truly deserve to have a giant ass comet come and obliterate us.

most factual statement in this thread....December 21st is right around the corner

2rd. we really need to get a december 20th troll stop/cage match/pool party scheduled. Mikey's place would be the logical place to hold it. might as well hire a few hundred strippers as well, seeing as nobody needs to worry about the bill.

[Felix]

we really need to get a december 20th troll stop/cage match/pool party scheduled. Mikey's place would be the logical place to hold it. might as well hire a few hundred strippers as well, seeing as nobody needs to worry about the bill.

don't forget the blow and weed...1/2 ounce of some good Andean white and a couple of ounces of some kick ass Indica ought to do the trick....see you there

[mvscal]

Have you found Constitutional authority by which any citizen is to be required to remain pregnant and give birth against her will?

Yes, it is known as the Fifth Amendment perhaps you've heard of it?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

You can save your intellectually dishonest arguments that 'Now isn't good time for Mommy' constitutes due process of law or that abortion doesn't not destroy human life.

[Mikey]

Carrying a baby to term, that YOU conceived due to activities YOU took part in, does not create a substantial life long risk.

The Maternal Mortality Rate in the US is about 21 deaths per 100,000 births.

[mvscal]

The Amendment requires state action, and does not apply to actions between individuals.

Oh, good. So I can just drive to Loozeiana and blow your head off since it's just an action between individuals.

Idiot.

[mvscal]

Carrying a baby to term, that YOU conceived due to activities YOU took part in, does not create a substantial life long risk.

The Maternal Mortality Rate in the US is about 21 deaths per 100,000 births.

That's what he said.

[Van]

So those women who die or otherwise sustain permanent physical damage as a result of their forced pregnancies should take great comfort in knowing that it doesn't happen very often.

[mvscal]

So those women who die or otherwise sustain permanent physical damage as a result of their forced pregnancies should take great comfort in knowing that it doesn't happen very often.

You say that is if abortion is completely safe.

[mvscal]

mvscal, what part of the necessity of state action do you not understand?

Federal and state funding of abortion clinics is state action, dumbfuck.

[Van]

So those women who die or otherwise sustain permanent physical damage as a result of their forced pregnancies should take great comfort in knowing that it doesn't happen very often.

You say that is if abortion is completely safe.

But it is completely her own choice. No one is forcing her to incur that risk.