T1B

poptart wrote:

Felix wrote:nobody is pro-death and you know it

Jsc has been party to three fetus killings.

Wtf are you babbling about?

Quit lying.

KC Scott wrote:Your evasion of the question seems to indicate you feel great shame in admiting you have paid prostitutes for sex.

He pays them to leave.

~ADAM~

At least this seems reasonable, at least until I consider the effort to go in and change my name to M Dumb. Probably hardy har har'd to yourself too, non?

poptart wrote: I wasn't mocking.
I was asking YOU what YOU thought about 4008 random women over a 3 year period, because I had just gotten done illustrating to you how extremely high-side WACK the estimates of the OJoOG's were.

Look at their projections, digest them, and really think about them for a moment.

They are saying that out of 4008 women, 680 rapes will occur among them over a three year period.

That's 17% of them (if it's one rape/one woman).
:?

Do you really think that out of 10 women, almost 2 of them get raped during the course of three years?

I don't.

According to the link you initially provided that's given us your beloved 95,000, it also said that some studies suggest as much as 75 to 90% of rape goes unreported, so while you can't get your mind around it, other, more qualified people seem to think it's a possibility.

Do I really think nearly 20% of women are raped at some point in their lives? I don't know, possibly. I don't think people are jumping out of bushes at that rate, but rape entails many different things, so could be. Or I can just smirk and say no way.

That said, your "one rape/one woman" is probably the crux of the matter. That study your so dismissive of doesn't say whether 680 women were raped or that there were 680 instances of rape. My best guess is that a few of those women were married to overzealous abusive husbands.

M Dumb wrote:How about you try to use something other than lol to explain to us why the numbers in the survey are inaccurate.

That's what I've been doing.

Read my first post on page 6 - as a response to Smackie's post near the bottom of page 5.

Some sources cite a 60-70% estimated unreported rate for rape - others sources estimate lower.
The OJoOG projections take the estimate up to 86% unreported - and that is an EXTREMELY high estimate.

Understand that every percentage point UP the unreported pct. goes jacks the TOTAL number of rapes up SIGNIFICANTLY.

I've said that I believe the perhaps 50% of rapes go unreported - and that means that I'm saying I think perhaps 200,000 rapes occur each year rather than the 95,000 official number.

If you go up to the silly (imo) 86%, rate, as the OJoOG does, that means that they are saying that 642,000 rapes occur in a year.

You can buy that if you want, but I sure don't.

That number is SO far from the 95,000 official number that I consider it a joke, because even if we use, for example, a HIGH 70% unreported rate, we get just 316,000 rapes occurring in a year - and that is a lot.

Well at least we've finally gotten to the point where you just admit it's, like, your opinion, man. Can't keep pretending 95,000 is some sort of magic number if we have no idea what percent of rapes are going unreported.

642,000 rapes works out to 1 for every 242 women. Entirely plausible, and that's without taking into account a single woman getting serially raped or that men and boys get raped as well. I'm surprised it's that low, actually.

M Dumb wrote:I was comparing the prevalence of rape to prostitution? :? I was actually just using prostitution to illustrate the fact that the official police data you either do or don't hold so dear depending on whom you're talking to doesn't accurately reflect the true scope of crime.

You were comparing how often the acts take place in relation to the data we have/don't have for both.

Is it a point if you repeat the same thing I just said?

M Dumb wrote:Of course, your response to that was to point out people involved in prostitution don't make reports to the police.

That's right.
Prostitution participants don't report their crime, but people who are raped DO make reports, it's verified, and that is why we DO have some hard data to go by regarding rape numbers.

You shouldn't have tried to say prostitution numbers are murky the same as rape numbers are, because you K'dYOA.

You're just trying to hang your hat on something even though not happening here either. You were trying to laugh away victimization surveys because no way they're as reliable as the super awesome police even though if you're right that 50% of rapes go unreported then there must be a reason that they weren't, you know, reported. And you you want KYOA: arguing that the police numbers are sooooooo important at the same time saying there's no way for us to know exactly how wrong they are.

The hard data reflects the number of people who've gone so far as to report a rape. Even you have told us it has no relation to reality. So why is this number important again?

poptart wrote:I said I don't believe it, there are no hard facts at all to back up that kind of a jacked up rate, but we do have hard facts telling us the the number is 95,000 a year

M Dumb wrote:How is this a hard fact if even you've said those numbers aren't accurate. Pure intelligence. ]

That IS the hard fact, goofball.

That's what's in the books, and I'm FINE with saying that 95,000 rapes occur in a year.

It's you and Van who are fighting vigorously to jack that number WAY up

Any number you or I think up other than 95,000 is based on some level of speculation.

My own speculation is that it might be 200,000+ - but the hard data we have is 95,000 (in 2006).

You have hit a new level of retard here. Just wow.

M Dumb wrote:You're own unsubstantiated belief is that about 50% of rapes are going unreported yet now you want Van to prove his own numbers????

Yes, because Van didn't say his is a BELIEF.


Van: No one really has any idea how many rape ACTS take place because most of them go UNREPORTED.


He stated that as a fact (that more than 50% of rapes go unreported), and yet he has NO facts to back it up.

For all Van really knows, the unreported rate might be... 40%, 36%... 23%... whatever...

I've openly said that my 200,000 number is my belief.

Yet you're somehow in a position to tell someone else he's wrong? Ponderous.

KC Scott wrote:Your evasion of the question...

Start a thread about prostitution and I'll be very glad to answer your questions.

This thread was already a clusterfuck before you came in, and I wasn't about to participate in slopping it up a lot more by answering ridiculous chase-the-tail questions some stupid asshat brought in which have NOTHING to do with the discussion.

You took things out of their clear context and basically shit all over yourself.
And then you sat there and demanded answers to your DUMB@SS questions.
Hilarious.


And now you present us with wack idiotic scenarios and fantasies which have come out of the depths of your twisted and depraved imagination.

Van wrote:Quit lying.

Who's lying?
He just said again that he's been party to three fetus killings - and he's said that regrets none of them.

In fact, he's pleased with the U.S. law which has allowed 50 million fetus killings to be sanctioned by the state.
So the fact that Jsc cites circumstances in his three cases does very little to temper my enthusiasm toward viewing him with disdain.

He knows full well that hundreds of thousands of fetuses are killed each year for reasons not much more compelling than... "This is just not going to work out well for me right now."

It is SICK and he is a dangerous man... clearly.

M Dumb wrote:According to the link you initially provided that's given us your beloved 95,000, it also said that some studies suggest as much as 75 to 90% of rape goes unreported, so while you can't get your mind around it, other, more qualified people seem to think it's a possibility.

I vividly illustrated the HUGE difference in rape numbers which come about if you compare, say, a 70% unreported rate and a 90% unreported rate.

50% unreported gives us a 190,000 rape number.
70% unreported gives us a 316,000 rape number.
86% unreported gives us a 642,000 number.

It makes a VERY big difference what the pct. is.

The OJoOG takes the pct. up VERY high.
Buy what they're selling if you want, but I don't.

M Dumb wrote:Do I really think nearly 20% of women are raped at some point in their lives?

Pinhead, that was NOT the question.

It is - Do you think almost 20% of a group of random women would be raped at some point in a THREE YEAR period.

There is a MONUMENTAL difference between whole life and three years.

M Dumb wrote:Can't keep pretending 95,000 is some sort of magic number if we have no idea what percent of rapes are going unreported.

Magic number?

It is the FACTUAL number which we are sure of, dolt.

M Dumb wrote:And you you want KYOA: arguing that the police numbers are sooooooo important at the same time saying there's no way for us to know exactly how wrong they are.

The police numbers are NOT wrong, clown.

There may be (almost surely is) numbers ADDED to what they have, and the validity of numbers people present is what we are arguing over.

The numbers which surely ARE wrong are the numbers which SOMEBODY is floating around.

Not all of the various estimates (above and beyond the police numbers) can be correct. Duh.

M Dumb wrote:So why is this number (police number) important again?

Because it is the sure base number we can VERIFY as being correct.

With prostitution act numbers, you have NO such base number to begin from.

M Dumb wrote:Yet you're somehow in a position to tell someone else he's wrong? Ponderous.

Very silly you.
You know, Van AGREES with my 200,000 number,
He thinks I'm RIGHT that 200,000 women (and not 95,000) are raped in a year.

He just chooses to add to that 200,000 and take it up to... 700,000?? Or more??

There we disagree.

poptart wrote:Who's lying?
He just said again that he's been party to three fetus killings

No, he didn't. He said he wasn't even aware of one of them, so that means he was not a party to it. He also said that another was only done in order to safe his wife's life, so that one was unavoidable.

Quit lying. You're despicable enough as it is.

So the fact that Jsc cites circumstances in his three cases does very little to temper my enthusiasm toward viewing him with disdain.

Of course it doesn't. Never let facts get between a caveman and his stupid notions. Someone's wife? She's just a "circumstance."

Fuck you.

As to whether you view him with disdain, believe me when I tell you that your disdain means less than a squirt of minnow piss in the Pacific. You think he and his still-living wife care in the least what some ignorant clod from South Korea thinks about them and their personal decisions?

"Honey, check this out. Some dork who believes in Noah's ark thinks we should have risked your life so as to avoid incurring his disdain."

"He's an idiot, Chip. Ignore him."

It is SICK and he is a dangerous man... clearly.

Somehow, I think if we were to determine which of you two is quite a bit more mentally imbalanced, you would Usain Bolt not just Jsc but nearly this entire board.

pop, between your nutjob conspiracy theories, your brain-dead Thumping and your medieval attitudes regarding women you're the epitome of a right-wing freak, in all the worst ways possible. You are every bit as Deliverance as it gets.

You know, Van AGREES with my 200,000 number,
He thinks I'm RIGHT that 200,000 women (and not 95,000) are raped in a year.

He just chooses to add to that 200,000 and take it up to... 700,000?? Or more??

There we disagree.

I don't know what the true number is. You don't either. No one does. It's an entirely stupid point to argue. We're dealing with the unknowable, so why even bother trying to quantify it?

In your case, of course you can't help but try to skew it to the lowest speculations possible, as if that will somehow mitigate your blatant misogyny.

It won't.

Van wrote: You think he and his still-living wife care in the least what some ignorant clod from South Korea thinks about them and their personal decisions?

"Honey, check this out. Some dork who believes in Noah's ark thinks we should have risked your life so as to avoid incurring his disdain."

"He's an idiot, Chip. Ignore him."

poptart wrote:Who's lying?
He just said again that he's been party to three fetus killings

Van wrote:No, he didn't. He said he wasn't even aware of one of them, so that means he was not a party to it. He also said that another was only done in order to safe his wife's life, so that one was unavoidable.

Well let's look at the three Jsc fetus killings then.


1. Jsc claims the woman's life was in danger. In such a case, I support the right for a decision to kill the fetus to be made. I have no way of knowing what the danger was, how truly worrying it was, etc., but because I'm a kind soul, I'll ASSume that a tough decision which needed to be made was made.

2. The woman Jsc knocked up killed the fetus without Jsc knowing. Now are you going to tell me that if Jsc had been told by her that she was going to kill it, Jsc would have argued against that? You think he would have demanded that she not kill it? He's pro-choice. Her choice. He would have gone along, no doubt. Jsc has blood on his hands.

3. Contraception difficulties. Sorry to inform you, a rubber *FAIL* is a Jsc *FAIL*. Any time a man places his dick in the pussy of a non-grandma woman, it is possible that a new life will be created. If it is created, a man must man-up and take responsibility for what he has done. Alan Keyes would publicly flog him for his pussy-out decision to KILL a fetus.


If we look at poptart's official scorecard, we see 2 fetus deaths (at least) in Jsc's column.

And of course he stands in support of the 50 MILLION fetus killings which the state has sanctioned since 1973.

He (and the people who support and enable this on-going genocide) is a menace to civilization.

That reality is only in doubt to those who are very warped and sad.

Scrot wrote:Van pegged you...

You actually care how Van from T1B pegs a person?

:)

Jsc wrote:I just don't see where you get the idea that every sex act should produce a baby.

It doesn't and I've never given that take.

But when a life is produced... a life is produced.
You did the deed, bottom line.

Jsc wrote: Among the differences between our positions is that I actually respect women...

You do?

It's always mind-boggling to hear someone who has stood in support of mass genocide of THE most helpless to scold someone else for not being respectful of others.

Have you ever stopped to consider how many of the 50,000,000 fetuses that have been slaughtered were supposed to be... WOMEN?

Respect for women??

bwaaa....

Van wrote:nutjob conspiracy theories

I consider it quite NUTJOB to believe that out of 10 rapes, just one gets reported.

To each his own.

poptart wrote:Well let's look at the three Jsc fetus killings then.

Yeah, great. Let's have you decide whether the "circumstances" were worthy of disdain or not. Never mind how the people who were actually involved felt about the situation.

1. Jsc claims the woman's life was in danger. In such a case, I support the right for a decision to kill the fetus to be made. I have no way of knowing what the danger was, how truly worrying it was, etc.,

Yes you do. He's told you on multiple occasions that it was due to an ectopic pregnancy that placed his wife's life in jeopardy.

For the third time, quit lying.

2. The woman Jsc knocked up killed the fetus without Jsc knowing.

Exactly. He wasn't a party to that one. End of story.

Now are you going to tell me that if Jsc had been told by her that she was going to kill it, Jsc would have argued against that? You think he would have demanded that she not kill it? He's pro-choice. Her choice. He would have gone along, no doubt. Jsc has blood on his hands.

No, he doesn't. You don't get to play the what-if game. He had no say in that one. It happened without his knowledge. Move on.

3. Contraception difficulties. Sorry to inform you, a rubber *FAIL* is a Jsc *FAIL*. Any time a man places his dick in the pussy of a non-grandma woman, it is possible that a new life will be created. If it is created, a man must man-up and take responsibility for what he has done. Alan Keyes would publicly flog him for his pussy-out decision to KILL a fetus.

It's not a man's decision to "man up." It's the woman's decision whether she wishes to remain pregnant and attempt to deliver a baby.

What part of "it's the woman's body so it's her decision" are you still struggling so mightily with? You can flat-out remove the guy from the equation. If the woman says she's going to try and have a baby, that's exactly what will happen. The guy can tell her to abort all he wants, and it doesn't matter. Conversely, if she says no, I am not going to allow myself to be pregnant for nine months and risk everything to try and deliver a baby I don't want, again, nothing the man says matters. He may be able to persuade her to his way of thinking but if her mind is set, that's it.

Jsc only had a decision to make in one of his three situations, and even in that one incident it was still 100% the woman's call.

If we look at poptart's official scorecard, we see 2 fetus deaths (at least) in Jsc's column.

poptart's official scoreboard is as retarded as every other thing poptart constructs.

And of course he stands in support of the 50 MILLION fetus killings which the state has sanctioned since 1973.

He stands in support of the women who made those decisions. That's why it's called "Pro Choice."

He (and the people who support and enable this on-going genocide) is a menace to civilization.

Your Bible is a much greater menace to civilization, as is the backwards thinking of similar Neanderthal morons the world over.

Scrot wrote:Van pegged you...

You actually care how Van from T1B pegs a person?

:)

And we're supposed to care how a total dumbass like you regards Jsc's wife?

Scottplug wrote:And yet you still won't give an answer to two very simple questions

I told you to go ahead and start the thread.
I'll be glad to comment there on prostitution.
100% guarantee.

But entering that here, and the way you did so, looked very ignorant, arrogant, and somewhat desperate.

pop, why are you always trying to dicate when and where posts ought to be made? You constantly try to get people to post things in a forum no one reads (where you can hide your insane gibberish), and when you're not doing that you're trying to tell them where to post things here.

Fuck that. Threads evolve. They go where they go. Your pussified dodges are tiresome. When someone asks you a question, just answer it. Don't tell them to ask it a second time in some other place.

poptart wrote:...

Wow, you've hit a whole new realm of sociopathic magical thinking. Just so we're clear:

- 95,000 rapes reported to the police is the baseline for understanding the prevalency of rape only because that's how many rapes were reported to the police. Kind of like if your wife has an affair and you never find out, it never happened. Okay. (And probably a good place to note police reports deal with intake, not whether or not those cases were even adjudicated, so even the 95,000 you been tugging off to includes cases that were without merit.)

- Even though we all agree rape is underreported you maintain everyone else's idiocy for referencing studies you find idiotic by their virtue of disagreeing with you. Noted.

- You gloss over relevant points just to hold on tighter to your idiocy, which no surprise, sociopath.

Van wrote:Your pussified dodges are tiresome.

When threads turn to religion, I think a great many posters' eyes begin to glaze over.

That is why when I am baited on my faith - which I very often am, I tend to decline comment unless the person wants to take it to the other forum.

Hey, I'm very pleased to discuss religion, but I try to divert out of simple respect for the board.


In this case, I consider Scrot's actions in this thread to be pussified (to use your term), so I choose not to validate him.

M Dumb wrote:95,000 rapes reported to the police is the baseline for understanding the prevalency of rape only because that's how many rapes were reported to the police.

If not reported rapes, what do you think should be used as a baseline for understanding rape prevalence?

poptart wrote:

Van wrote:Your pussified dodges are tiresome.

When threads turn to religion, I think a great many posters' eyes begin to glaze over.

When you automatically go into Spin Mode by quoting Bible verses rather than answering direct questions, yes, I'm sure everyone's eyes do glaze over. We've seen that act way too many times.

This, however, wasn't a question pertaining to religion. KC is asking you about prostitution, not silly children's stories from the Old Testament. Your dodge here is entirely pointless even for you.

If not reported rapes, what do you think should be used as a baseline for understanding rape prevalence?

There isn't one, nor can there be one. Because so many rapes go unreported, their real number is unknowable. Any attempt at offering one is pure your-guess-is-as-good-as-mine conjucture.

That being said, I'd still lean towards the estimates given by those groups that study such things at the professional level, as opposed to going with your usual take of, "Most women are just sluts who need to learn to keep their legs closed, so let's call the number of actual icky rapes, oh, one hundred and forty-two. That sounds about right to me. God, women are such harlots. Once they're done with their birthin' duties, we really should just stone 'em all."

poptart wrote:

M Dumb wrote:95,000 rapes reported to the police is the baseline for understanding the prevalency of rape only because that's how many rapes were reported to the police.

If not reported rapes, what do you think should be used as a baseline for understanding rape prevalence?

The horse's mouth, you vacuous dog eater. I know it's hard for a misogynist mouth breather to believe many women who've been raped just don't want to relive the ordeal via the legal process, especially considering how difficult it is to secure a conviction. Surveying women as to whether or not they've ever been raped is far more accurate than counting how many of them told a police officer about it.

M Dumb wrote:I know it's hard for a misogynist mouth breather to believe many women who've been raped just don't want to relive the ordeal via the legal process, especially considering how difficult it is to secure a conviction

Really?

Is that why poptart is of the opinion that probably over half of rape victims choose not to report?


And is it only women?

It's estimated that 9% of rape vicims are MALE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender


You've made little sense in this thread, and it continues.



The knife can also cut both ways.

Twenty-seven percent (27%) of these complainants
admitted they had fabricated their accusation just before
taking the polygraph or right after they failed the test....

http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/


"Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual
assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained,
the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing.
hese percentages have remained constant for 7 years."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194032,00.html



Happy reading! :)

poptart wrote: It's estimated that 9% of rape vicims are MALE.

The knife can also cut both ways.

Fascinating points. You'd have thought someone would have made those very same points by now.

M Club wrote:642,000 rapes works out to 1 for every 242 women. Entirely plausible, and that's without taking into account a single woman getting serially raped or that men and boys get raped as well.

M Club wrote:And probably a good place to note police reports deal with intake, not whether or not those cases were even adjudicated, so even the 95,000 you been tugging off to includes cases that were without merit.

Only a misogynist fuck would discount large scale surveys of women's experiences unless they were cross-referenced against the men who raped them's version of events.

M Dumb wrote:Fascinating points. You'd have thought someone would have made those very same points by now.

Sure, you made the point that you think some false reports may be filed, but I've got to believe that you are of the opinion that nowhere near 20, 30... or 40% of reports might be false, as those piece speak of.

Am I right?

M Dumb wrote:Only a misogynist fuck would discount large scale surveys of women's experiences unless they were cross-referenced against the men who raped them's version of events.

But yet here you are HAVING to discount women's stories because you admit that they DO file false police rape reports.

Well hello, M Misogynist!

err... No, my bad.
That's M SlappedByReality

And how much easier is it to fib on a friggin' survey compared to actually having to stand in front of the police and try to bullshit them - where you could get yourself into some hot water?

Ja, I suppose if you're willing to pretend there aren't any differences between a woman filling out a survey in the privacy of her own wherever and one who goes so far as to falsely accuse someone of rape. Your own link provides quite a few reasons as to why. All the more reason to rely on formal studies rather than "official" police data.

But no, I would not have suspected upward of 40% of legal allegations would be false. Aside from your link saying the studies are problematic, if that's what the literature turned out to claim then I suppose I'd have to defer.

Van wrote:your blatant misogyny

M Dumb wrote:you barbarian

Van wrote:women-loathing cunts like you

Van wrote:dirtclods like you have no business telling her what she needs to do with her own body.

KC Scrot wrote: viewing women as nothing more than chattel

Jsc wrote:go fuck yourself. Go fuck yourself. Go fuck yourself.

Van wrote:Fuck you

Van wrote:You're despicable

Van wrote:a caveman and his stupid notions

Van wrote:ignorant clod from South Korea thinks about them and their personal decisions

Van wrote:your blatant misogyny

M Dumb wrote:sociopath

M Dumb wrote:I know it's hard for a misogynist mouth breather...

M Dumb wrote:misogynist fuck

Yes, I'm the ugly misogynistic pro-life caveMAN.

But I wonder what wonderful names the death 'tards would find to use for the 60% of WOMEN, according to Gallup (2011), who hold the very same view on abortion that I do?

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/05/23/gall ... s-illegal/

Probably just call them women. The whole idea behind pro-choice is that each woman should be allowed to make her own decision, not the government.

Curious how many pro-lifers have themselves run down to zee ol' abortion clinic to get did when it was them with a zygote and not just some abstract issue they took the same stance on as their daddies.

This thread has not been piñatatart’s finest moment.

Sincerely,

MA

poptart wrote:Yes, I'm the ugly misogynistic pro-life caveMAN.

Excellent. We accomplished something after all in this thread.

Van wrote:Excellent. We accomplished something after all in this thread.

My abortion view happens to be the majority view, and it is also the view that a majority of WOMEN hold.

None of the misogynist name-calling has made a lick of sense, Van.

You've been hysterical, intolerant, and senseless.


What names do you have for the pro-life women?

KC Scottplug wrote:

poptart wrote:My abortion view happens to be the majority view, and it is also the view that a majority of WOMEN hold.

Sure it is. You just keep believing that. Meanwhile, the majority of women who feel the need will continue to get abortions, regardless of their political claims.

None of the misogynist name-calling has made a lick of sense, Van.

It's been spot-on, echoed by multiple parties in this thread. You clearly view women as chattel; "vessels," to use your exact word. You don't give the slightest fuck about them except as vehicles for breeding.

You're a monster.

You've been hysterical, intolerant, and senseless.

I haven't been the least bit hysterical, I've made perfect sense, and the only intolerance I've displayed has been directed at your blatant misogyny. I have no problem copping to that. You have nothing but contempt for women. You think of them as second-class citizens who ought to have fewer rights than males. Yes, I'm intolerant of people who think that way.

What names do you have for the pro-life women?

"Brainwashed hypocrites"? "Few and far between, in actual fact"? "Judgmental cunts who need to keep their mouths shut where other people's bodies are concerned"?

How's that, for starters?

Van wrote:

What names do you have for the pro-life women?

"Brainwashed hypocrites"? "Few and far between, in actual fact"? "Judgmental cunts who need to keep their mouths shut where other people's bodies are concerned"?

How's that, for starters?

Funny how some of the most fervent anti-abortion women seem to be ones who have had abortions and then, after the fact, suddenly realized that it was wrong. They then go on a crusade, not just to convince other women that they shouldn't get abortions, but to deny other women the opportunity to make the choice that they made for themselves.

Brainwashed hypocrites pretty much covers it as far these women are concerned.

It does, but I like the others too.

Mikey wrote:Funny how some of the most fervent anti-abortion women seem to be ones who have had abortions and then, after the fact, suddenly realized that it was wrong. They then go on a crusade, not just to convince other women that they shouldn't get abortions, but to deny other women the opportunity to make the choice that they made for themselves.

Brainwashed hypocrites pretty much covers it as far these women are concerned.

I wouldn't go so far as to make such a blanket judgment of all women who do this. I'm guessing what happens in many cases is that these women project their feelings of remorse onto ALL women who have abortions, and with the best of intentions for those women who are considering it, try to keep them from making the same "mistake" they did. While certainly not a sure-fire or foolproof solution, their thoughts are that legislating abortion into illegality will save these women from the remorse that will follow making the "wrong" choice, because there will (legally) be no choice to make. What they fail to consider is that some women don't feel that sense of regret, believing afterward that their decisions were the right ones for them, and not looking back.

Sure, "brainwashed hypocrites" probably is an accurate depiction of many of these women, but not all of them.

Or the small possibility that many women just happen to be pro-life.

Smackie Chan wrote:

Mikey wrote:Funny how some of the most fervent anti-abortion women seem to be ones who have had abortions and then, after the fact, suddenly realized that it was wrong. They then go on a crusade, not just to convince other women that they shouldn't get abortions, but to deny other women the opportunity to make the choice that they made for themselves.

Brainwashed hypocrites pretty much covers it as far these women are concerned.

I wouldn't go so far as to make such a blanket judgment of all women who do this. I'm guessing what happens in many cases is that these women project their feelings of remorse onto ALL women who have abortions, and with the best of intentions for those women who are considering it, try to keep them from making the same "mistake" they did. While certainly not a sure-fire or foolproof solution, their thoughts are that legislating abortion into illegality will save these women from the remorse that will follow making the "wrong" choice, because there will (legally) be no choice to make. What they fail to consider is that some women don't feel that sense of regret, believing afterward that their decisions were the right ones for them, and not looking back.

Sure, "brainwashed hypocrites" probably is an accurate depiction of many of these women, but not all of them.

OK then, 78.9% of them.
:wink:

I pretty much agree with what you're saying here but instead of trying to make abortion illegal they should be putting their efforts into convincing other women not to make the "wrong" choice. To me, it's a completely self-centered (and hypocritical) attitude that suddenly they know what's "right" and/or "wrong" for any other women besides themselves. Even if a woman ends up remorseful over the choice she has made, at least it was her choice and she has the right to make it.

Mikey wrote:instead of trying to make abortion illegal they should be putting their efforts into convincing other women not to make the "wrong" choice.

Agree, but they may be looking back at their experiences, which might include having loved ones and others close to them trying unsuccessfully to convince them not to go thru with it. Their remorse might include wishing they never had the choice in the first place, and so they're trying to "save" others by not making available to them the same choice they had, but now wish they hadn't. And again, I think there's a prevalent feeling that if "I" (as a woman who's had an abortion) feel the way I do, then everyone who has one must feel the same way afterward, too.

To me, it's a completely self-centered (and hypocritical) attitude that suddenly they know what's "right" and/or "wrong" for any other women besides themselves. Even if a woman ends up remorseful over the choice she has made, at least it was her choice and she has the right to make it.

Preachin' to the choir, friendo.

M Club wrote:Or the small possibility that many women just happen to be pro-life.

Is there anything more hypocritical than claiming to be pro-life but still having an abortion?

M Club wrote:Or the small possibility that many women just happen to be pro-life.

In which case these appellations still apply...

"Few and far between, in actual fact" and "Judgmental cunts who need to keep their mouths shut where other people's bodies are concerned"

poptart wrote:

Van wrote:your blatant misogyny

M Dumb wrote:you barbarian

Van wrote:women-loathing cunts like you

Van wrote:dirtclods like you have no business telling her what she needs to do with her own body.

KC Scrot wrote: viewing women as nothing more than chattel

Jsc wrote:go fuck yourself. Go fuck yourself. Go fuck yourself.

Van wrote:Fuck you

Van wrote:You're despicable

Van wrote:a caveman and his stupid notions

Van wrote:ignorant clod from South Korea thinks about them and their personal decisions

Van wrote:your blatant misogyny

M Dumb wrote:sociopath

M Dumb wrote:I know it's hard for a misogynist mouth breather...

M Dumb wrote:misogynist fuck

Yes, I'm the ugly misogynistic pro-life caveMAN.

It's not you who is the sum of those epithets--because you really don't have any substance. You are a classic empty cypher filled with popular gas (in this case the boring old Christer cult). And it is certainly that--and that which informs it--which is the 400-lb tumor in the room.

Ignorance, Intolerance, and Subjugation of Women are exactly what comprises the essence of Judaism and its bastard offspring-- the Islam and Christer cults.

The GOP has been effectively hijacked by this contagion and everyone--regardless of political bent--is watching in some variation of disgust and disdain.

Van wrote:You don't give the slightest fuck about them (women) except as vehicles for breeding.

You're a monster.

Which one of us supports the slaughter of 25 million of 'em?

Mental.

Van wrote:your blatant misogyny

My view is the same as that of at least half of U.S. women.

It's not my fault you're a hysterical pantload.

pop wrote:My view is the same as that of at least half of U.S. women.

The hell it is.

And just because you support zygote/fetus 'rights,' that doesn't mean you support women at all. You don't. You see women as nothing more than vessels for carrying zygotes. You don't give the slightest shit about the actual woman.

Van wrote:You clearly view women as chattel. Your blatant misogyny...

Van wrote:1. Her face is certainly "decent." We've all fucked much worse.
2. You couldn't just do her from behind,
or maybe slap a Nick Saban mask on her?

You're really awful at this.

Smackie Chan wrote:

M Club wrote:Or the small possibility that many women just happen to be pro-life.

Is there anything more hypocritical than claiming to be pro-life but still having an abortion?

I assumed we were talking collectively about the 60% of ladies in the Gallup survey, not just the hypocritical sorts.