Political Funny Pictures Thread

[Jerchap2]

Without getting into an abortion debate, this is dumb.

Reminds me of the old joke: What is the difference between a pregnant woman and a light bulb? You can unscrew a light bulb.

He should have backed out to begin with....

 

[daddyusmaximus]

I say runaway baby daddies should be castrated.

 

[BogWalker]

Isn't that pretty much what child support already attempts to do?

 

[jamil]

Isn't that pretty much what child support already attempts to do?

I was gonna say. The person who created that meme never met my mom's lawyer.

 

[HoughMade]

Isn't that pretty much what child support already attempts to do?

If only there were some legal mechanism to force men to pay money to, ya know....provide monetary support for the child. I don't know what we'd call it, though.

 

[Jerchap2]

 

[Bill of Rights]

That screenshot should be broadcast with the names and images intact. If they're so proud of being communists by belief, they shouldn't have any problem with their names being attached to it.

 

[MCgrease08]

Does that mean everybody gets to share her assets?

 

[Jerchap2]

Does that mean everybody gets to share her assets?

It's a good bet that she doesn't really even know what it means. Probably a millennial feminist. Approach with that question at your own risk.

 

[IndyDave1776]

If only there were some legal mechanism to force men to pay money to, ya know....provide monetary support for the child. I don't know what we'd call it, though.

Exactly. My questions, which is generally ridiculed and dismissed by leftists, never answered, are:

1. How is it that an unborn child is a human life when murder charges are filed after killing a pregnant woman, but abortion is legal, apparently hinging on the notion that an unborn child either is or is not a life strictly at the whim of an individual woman, which, is at best, an untenable legal position?

2. Why do we hear a clamor for women being free to do as they choose with their own bodies (apparently including and especially exercising a contrived right to destroy someone else's body) but there is scarcely a voice supporting the men who have no choice in the matter, but are financially on the hook for the next couple of decades, or not, strictly on someone else's whim, when that someone else was equally responsible in creating the situation.

While I am strictly pro-life, if we are going to have elective abortion on demand, it should run something like this:

1. A woman gets the choice to carry or abort. In other words, she has an unfettered choice to opt out.

2. Unlike the present system in which a woman gets to make a man's decision to opt out our not for him, he should have that same right to opt out of parenthood. Specifically, he should get a one time up or down choice in which he either takes responsibility or the child is legally a complete stranger to him and never will be any more than that.

3. There should also be an option in the event of a woman wanting to opt out in which the man can take sole responsibility for the child and the woman becomes a legal stranger to the child.

This is one of many leftists screams for 'equality' which rests on the foundation of denying anything approaching equality to the non-preferred class of individuals involved. There is a reason why math offers us signs for known quantities in form of 'equal', 'not equal', 'less than', or 'greater than', with no room for debate (less/greater than or equal to deal with unknown quantities).

 

[Bill of Rights]

First off, if we're gonna have this discussion, we should probably split it out of this thread. If people want to do that, let me know and I'll move the posts, or any mod can do it.

Second,

Exactly. My questions, which is generally ridiculed and dismissed by leftists, never answered, are:

1. How is it that an unborn child is a human life when murder charges are filed after killing a pregnant woman, but abortion is legal, apparently hinging on the notion that an unborn child either is or is not a life strictly at the whim of an individual woman, which, is at best, an untenable legal position?

That works the same way that an AR pistol is a pistol until it touches the operator's shoulder, at which point it becomes a short-barreled rifle, and subject to a $200 tax stamp, or 10 years in club fed. Likewise, it's a pistol until it has a vertical foregrip on it, at which point those same rounds that came out of a pistol before are now "rifle fire".

2. Why do we hear a clamor for women being free to do as they choose with their own bodies (apparently including and especially exercising a contrived right to destroy someone else's body) but there is scarcely a voice supporting the men who have no choice in the matter, but are financially on the hook for the next couple of decades, or not, strictly on someone else's whim, when that someone else was equally responsible in creating the situation.

I'm less strict in my pro-life stance. I favor choice, because some individuals will choose life. The inescapable fact is that the potential life in that fetus both affects and is affected by the actual life of the mother-to-be. My small-L libertarian beliefs won't allow me to support governmental limitation on the rights of the known for the potential.

To ask similar questions to yours, I would ask why we don't celebrate conception day as we do birthday, why we cannot insure a fetus until it is an infant, why a child's age is calculated from his birth and not his conception, and why parents are not parents until their child is born? Please understand that I don't intend to insult or hurt anyone, and some of these issues can tread hard on some very sensitive topics and emotions. If I've caused pain, I apologize now.

While I am strictly pro-life, if we are going to have elective abortion on demand, it should run something like this:

1. A woman gets the choice to carry or abort. In other words, she has an unfettered choice to opt out.

Some on "your side" of this subject would say she had that choice when she spread her legs.

2. Unlike the present system in which a woman gets to make a man's decision to opt out our not for him, he should have that same right to opt out of parenthood. Specifically, he should get a one time up or down choice in which he either takes responsibility or the child is legally a complete stranger to him and never will be any more than that.

And they would say he had that same opportunity, when he "dipped his wick", so to speak. Personally, I agree, though. He should have the same right she has, as they are equal partners in the creation of the fetus.

3. There should also be an option in the event of a woman wanting to opt out in which the man can take sole responsibility for the child and the woman becomes a legal stranger to the child.

Also true. Sauce for the gander/sauce for the goose, so to speak.

This is one of many leftists screams for 'equality' which rests on the foundation of denying anything approaching equality to the non-preferred class of individuals involved. There is a reason why math offers us signs for known quantities in form of 'equal', 'not equal', 'less than', or 'greater than', with no room for debate (less/greater than or equal to deal with unknown quantities).

And yes, again. Everyone seems legally determined to stick HIM with all the responsibilities (or so the child support system would seem) while ensuring that SHE has access to all the resources: WIC has no place in their name for Men. (It might be available to men, but I know not) There are "Women's Shelters" available, but you rarely hear of a "men's shelter", not to even come close to addressing the reality that men can be abused, too, and discounting any puns to the contrary, it doesn't make them p-whipped to be so. Some places designed for children's enjoyment are off-limits to a man alone, but a man with a child is welcome, as is a woman in any context.

The problem, IMHO, is not one of parent or not, wealth or poverty, male or female. The problem is one of equality of treatment. If something is available to one person, it should not be restricted to another *class* of person (though it may be restricted to an individual based on that individual's actions, again IMHO."

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Jerchap2]

 

[Jerchap2]

 

[IndyDave1776]

First off, if we're gonna have this discussion, we should probably split it out of this thread. If people want to do that, let me know and I'll move the posts, or any mod can do it.

Thanks, but I, for one, don't really feel the inclination toward pursuing it. My intent was simply to address the failures of logic and reason embedded in the meme and the underlying system of belief, particularly without opening a discussion on the merits of the political or social issues, just the bizarrely imbalanced application of consequences.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Anyone here play Hearthstone? If so, this joke's for you.

 

[Jerchap2]

 

[Jerchap2]

So, according to Her Highness, it is not a mass of cells as Planned Parenthood claims, but an "unborn person" who has no Constitutional rights.

[video=youtube;_keodvXFNUI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_keodvXFNUI[/video]

 

[Wolfhound]

 

[jbombelli]

The saddest thing is that the only story in that cover I would actually read is the one about Honey Boo Boo's alien baby.

 

[Jerchap2]

He could use a pair. Just not sure what he would use them for....