You can't kill a living human being...

Death Penalty exists...

Abortion will always be a touchy subject, but if you have money to travel, you can get that abortion in places that support them. So what these abortion laws do is punish poor people who can't make that trip. Then those same people are forced to either put the child up for adoption (because we don't have a ton of children that can't be adopted already) or they can raise that child, most likely in the same situation that led to them being poor and not having a proper family unit.

Storytime, and god help me if my wife ever finds out I talked about this.

I was raised in a poor home, with an abusive family. My wife was raised in a poor home with a good family. When we started dating after High School back in 1992, you had two choices for safe sex, condoms or birth control (doctor visit with no insurance and it was Texas in 1992, they weren't just tossing it out like free candy). We had to use condoms because we couldn't afford birth control and because she was scared of using it. If you have ever read the side effects, you might be too, seeing as death can be one of them in rare instances.

So condoms were the watchword. But accidents happen; maybe one just didn't work right, maybe it was the one that broke one time, but we ended up getting pregnant. I told her that I would do whatever she wanted. We planned to marry soon anyway, so I said we could shotgun it if need be. She said she didn't think she wanted a child. So I said that it was HER decision, but I would be there through it.

It isn't easy. Unless you have been in that exact situation, you will never know the fear and uncertainty involved. We were 18 and 20, just starting out with shit jobs, living with parents, and with a 1968 Catalina as our only vehicle. Her parents would have forced her to have it if they knew, because they thought the same way as @bobknight33. We would have been stuck living with them, they already didn't like me because I wasn't deeply religious and not into ranch life. My parents wouldn't have taken us in because my mom didn't like my wife until years later. The stress and anger would have probably split us up, and both of us would have likely remained poor to this day.

Instead, my wife chose to not have the child and got an abortion in the first trimester. We kept it to ourselves, married later, and are still together today. We both fought our way out of being poor people to being on the upper spectrum of middle class. We decided we just didn't want kids and now we spoil our niece. I will swear right now that we would never have made it to where we are today if we had been forced to raise a child because of someone else's deranged idea that every child must be born regardless of the future in store for it.

So, yes, I can speak to what an actual poor person goes through in that situation. We were lucky, because there weren't laws rammed through by religious people who have no clue of the consequences, just a strong delusion that God wants all children born. Funny how those religious people wash their hands of the aftermath of their crusade. Even funnier are the ones that quietly send Mary Lou to California to 'visit an aunt' for a couple of months when they find out their spawn got knocked up.

TL;DR

If you fight against easy abortions, except those where the child has reached the capability to survive if it had to be medically removed from the mother, you and the rest of your ilk can go fuck yourselves.

Your offended feelings shouldn't override the identity of the feminist movement, which has no obligation to pat you on the head because you claim you were "there at the start". So yes, I hope you find a movement with a title that fits your views more closely. If you think that feminism isn't about gender equality, then I can't help you figure that out.

"still today a crackhead mother is more likely to get full custody than a fully employed stand up father..." This just isn't true; it's the kind of silly strawman that MRAs love to knock up, in fact. It's not reflected in law: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-meyer/dispelling-the-myth-of-ge_b_1617115.html

All it takes is one teacher to change your life. Like the one that knocked up my cousin...

I remember her as the knocked up cashier in City Slickers, and she was Greg's secretary in Dharma and Greg.

Careful now, I'm not a liberal. I'm an independent. You should try it sometime.

At one time or another I've been an anarchist, liberal, conservative and (card-carrying) Libertarian. Like anyone here, my views are complex because life is complex.

I don't put much merit on any of the attributes you've given Romney. Inheriting money isn't successful -- creating it is; knocking up a your wife isn't noble, it's natural; using laws as a barometer for morality is repulsive; and squares are just fearful of everything everybody but themselves do.

Many people inherit money and burn through it irresponsibly. Romney worked hard and created value, which brought him more wealth.

Clinton knocked up Hillary, are you going to compare his "natural" abuse of women and dishonoring of his marriage with Romney's marriage?

Laws, for the most part, reflect morality. Plenty of stupid, unjust laws exist and are bent. I believe if anarchy ensued, Romney would still be the same decent square. He could be fooling us all, of course.

The fact is, Obama has been vetted.

Where are his grades and college papers? Does anyone have a timeline of his immigration status? When did he have dual citizenship and for how long? Do you think a boy raised by marxists in a foreign land shares American values? I don't. Obama was a spoiled kid who decided to "forward" himself playing the race card. He had no reason to be bitter about anything except by choice.

And if you want to talk trash, call him out for: not closing Guantanamo; for not using his position to limit Wall Street's power and corruption; for allowing indefinite detention; for allowing citizen executions without a trial; for extending unwarranted wiretapping; for catering to the pharmaceutical industries during negotiations for the Affordable Care Act; etc.

Arch-liberals 'hate' Obama for reasons different than centrists. On many points, we would agree Obama poses a serious threat to liberty, and there are other additional points which make him an unacceptable candidate to me, but not to you. So be it.


>> ^MrFisk:

Careful now, I'm not a liberal. I'm an independent. You should try it sometime.
I don't put much merit on any of the attributes you've given Romney. Inheriting money isn't successful -- creating it is; knocking up a your wife isn't noble, it's natural; using laws as a barometer for morality is repulsive; and squares are just fearful of everything everybody but themselves do.
The fact is, Obama has been vetted. And if you want to talk trash, call him out for: not closing Guantanamo; for not using his position to limit Wall Street's power and corruption; for allowing indefinite detention; for allowing citizen executions without a trial; for extending unwarranted wiretapping; for catering to the pharmaceutical industries during negotiations for the Affordable Care Act; etc.
But I know the foam at your mouth hinders any reasoning in your brain. In fact, is Romney the man you put in for during the primary? Or isn't it just anybody but B. Hussein O.?
>> ^quantumushroom:
Romney: successful businessman, family man, upstanding citizen, square.
The irony here is that you, the liberal, have all the facts the libmedia could dig up on Romney, with a huge side dish of bias, of course.
Obama hasn't been vetted to this day, huge gaps remain in his personal history.
What we have now, however, is a 4-year record meriting his firing.
>> ^MrFisk:
Based on Romney's imperformance, he doesn't merit a first term.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Based on BHO's performance, he doesn't deserve a second term.

Careful now, I'm not a liberal. I'm an independent. You should try it sometime.

I don't put much merit on any of the attributes you've given Romney. Inheriting money isn't successful -- creating it is; knocking up a your wife isn't noble, it's natural; using laws as a barometer for morality is repulsive; and squares are just fearful of everything everybody but themselves do.

The fact is, Obama has been vetted. And if you want to talk trash, call him out for: not closing Guantanamo; for not using his position to limit Wall Street's power and corruption; for allowing indefinite detention; for allowing citizen executions without a trial; for extending unwarranted wiretapping; for catering to the pharmaceutical industries during negotiations for the Affordable Care Act; etc.

But I know the foam at your mouth hinders any reasoning in your brain. In fact, is Romney the man you put in for during the primary? Or isn't it just anybody but B. Hussein O.?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Romney: successful businessman, family man, upstanding citizen, square.
The irony here is that you, the liberal, have all the facts the libmedia could dig up on Romney, with a huge side dish of bias, of course.
Obama hasn't been vetted to this day, huge gaps remain in his personal history.
What we have now, however, is a 4-year record meriting his firing.
>> ^MrFisk:
Based on Romney's imperformance, he doesn't merit a first term.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Based on BHO's performance, he doesn't deserve a second term.

>> ^probie:

Hope it's better than Funny People. That movie sucked. 40 year old Virgin is the only thing Apatow's done so far that I liked.


You thought Funny People sucked?! Jesus you poor bastard.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The flip side is liberals roaring that a woman is not to be judged for her potential lack of morality, but when she gets knocked up without being married, we 'all' have to pitch in and subsidize her irresponsibility.


If we want to live in a society where we care for one another and that works. Also a society where having children is something of value, than I wouldn't call it subsidizing irresponsibility. I would call that being a "village" in the old world sense where we chip in and work together.

If viagra is covered by insurance, I don't see why an IUD or the pill can't be.>> ^quantumushroom:

All right, Cenk. You claim the insurance companies WANT to pay for contraception? Then why do we need socialists to pass this law to MAKE them pay for it?
Harsh language aside, who is the mentioned women fooling about "expensive" contraception? Can't afford a pack of Trojans? She can't convince the (presumable) dude to buy and bring them along? Bullsh1t. I pay for my own chloroform, they can pay for the lingerie.
It's been pointed out that 'small-government' conservatives are hypocritically invading the bedroom, and some of that criticism is warranted.
The flip side is liberals roaring that a woman is not to be judged for her potential lack of morality, but when she gets knocked up without being married, we 'all' have to pitch in and subsidize her irresponsibility.

All right, Cenk. You claim the insurance companies WANT to pay for contraception? Then why do we need socialists to pass this law to MAKE them pay for it?

Harsh language aside, who is the mentioned women fooling about "expensive" contraception? Can't afford a pack of Trojans? She can't convince the (presumable) dude to buy and bring them along? Bullsh1t. I pay for my own chloroform, they can pay for the lingerie.

It's been pointed out that 'small-government' conservatives are hypocritically invading the bedroom, and some of that criticism is warranted.

The flip side is liberals roaring that a woman is not to be judged for her potential lack of morality, but when she gets knocked up without being married, we 'all' have to pitch in and subsidize her irresponsibility.

>> ^Hybrid:

Actually it's not too hard to make an app, but you do have to know how to program. Obviously, the more the app does, the longer it'll take and the more bugs there might be to fix. But simple apps/games can be knocked up in days. I do Android development myself and it's quick and easy, but I make games for a living so I have the programming knowledge to get things done.
However, an app is only worth making if it does something unique on it's own. I just don't see what a VideoSift app would do, above and beyond the standard mobile version of the site.


I'm under the impression that most apps of the sort we're discussing here are nothing more than SSBs. I believe it's little more than laying some custom chrome on top of Webkit, basically producing a website with the feel of a native app by making the interface partially a local app.

Based on that assumption, my next assumption would be that they can be cobbled together rather quickly but you are correct that it would not do a whole lot that the mobile site doesn't already do.

Actually it's not too hard to make an app, but you do have to know how to program. Obviously, the more the app does, the longer it'll take and the more bugs there might be to fix. But simple apps/games can be knocked up in days. I do Android development myself and it's quick and easy, but I make games for a living so I have the programming knowledge to get things done.

However, an app is only worth making if it does something unique on it's own. I just don't see what a VideoSift app would do, above and beyond the standard mobile version of the site.

>> ^spoco2:

The video... is ok.
I just have a huge problem with Katherine Heigl and her hypocritical bullshit comments about the tv shows and films she works on that make her millions of dollars.
There's such a thing as professionalism, and she doesn't have it.
So... yeah, I will not endorse this video.
(Yes, I am well aware that me not upvoting this video here has a net impact of less than zero percent on... well, anything.)


Oh wow! I was so ready to pick holes in those articles... but no, she's a bellend! Damnit, i've always really liked her since Knocked Up, grrr

No i missed that one.

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
Have you seen The Daily Show clip of this story? (don't know if it's sifted yet)
The lawyer knocked up a 17 year old girl.

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
Thanks!! :

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
Creeeeppppyyyy!!
*promote