Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Atticus Grinch]

Michelle Malkin: A thinking man's Ann Coulter?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by TexLex
1) Hmm....I thought it was obvious.

If I read the FB more, maybe it would be obvious.

So about the stretch marks, then,. They do fade and if you are light skinned, they can fade to the point they are barely perceptable. If you are darker skinned, not so much.

Originally posted by TexLex
2) Why do you ask? Are gays better spellers?

I ask because you seem awful interested in my boobs. NTTAWWT.

About the gays and spelling, the male gays tend to be anal about those sorts of things. Badabum.

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
She's all woman.

Wrong. I am a man from the future. In the future, men will have the babies to make up for inventing pantyhose and pointy-toed shoes.

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You forgot about the episiotomy and other horrors that dominated board discussion a few days ago.

Just have the kid ripped out of your belly and you won't have to worry about that - that's what we all do in the future anyhow.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Michelle Malkin: A thinking man's Ann Coulter?

She needs better make-up. That make-up she is wearing makes her look like a WWII comfort girl. IYKWIM.

Originally posted by Not Me
If I read the FB more, maybe it would be obvious.

Probably not.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub

And speaking of that scientific question, I'm not sure exactly how that argument goes for the left. Do they think that at some point during the developmental process, the non-human magically becomes human?

Abortion is a necessary evil. You have to have it legal for practical reasons, but you can't really square it on most moral scales.

Nor can you abide forcing a woman to carry a child on any moral scales. Of course, the vehement right refuses to address that moral issue. The duck it by saying "its a personal responsibility thing".

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by TexLex
Any man or woman who is too shallow to see that none of those things compares to what you get in return (I'm not referring to those who choose not to have kids for other reasons and there's NWWT) has something seriously wrong with them and shouldn't be having kids anyway.

Plus, the stretch marks fade........right??????

-TL

p.s. Your stats are falling. Out with the boobies.

Hey, I don't know about you, but I don't give a shit how sweet my kid might be... I want my wife to stay reasonably hot. Call me shallow, but if having the kid would make her a slob like some unfortunate people become post-pregnancy, I'd say "fuck it" and adopt (which more people ought to do anyway, for different reasons).

You think I'm not horrified at what's happened to some of my friends' wives post-child bearing? Some of them just literally fell apart. That's some scary shit, and to dismiss concerns about that sort of thing as shallow is in itself pretty shallow.

I go to the market and see these 45ish women in "mom jeans" and shudder. Its like they grew some sort of extra stomach. That shit ain't right... Thank God my wife is insanely vain. How do people like that sleep together? I mean, love is wonderful, but there has to be some physical attractiveness for your sex life... We all get old and wrinkle, but these "moms" and their "dads" with their huge beer guts. I want to say, "Dude, come on... lay off the extra double cheeseburger and go for a jog... and throw out the fucking pleated Dockers..."

Or maybe its just that people around these parts are so fucking slovenly in their personal appearance... I hope for humanity's sake its local.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Not Me
I didn't say that. All I did was wonder how many would agree to a pregnancy if that technology existed.

Well let me ask you then. If your wife was pregnant and both you and she wanted the baby but she had a heart condition that made carrying the baby very risky for her and for the baby. So much so that the odds were greater that both she and the baby would die if she tried to carry it to term. If there were a way for the baby to be implanted into you and you could much more safely carry the baby to term, would you agree to it? Be honest.

I'd do it. But I'd do just about anything for her. But I wouldn't like it, and I wouldn't do it for the child's sake.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Note that if the pill doesn't work 1 out of 1000 times, and you have sex, on average, just 10 times per month, the odds are that you will produce a child every eight years.

Another way of thinking of it: If it costs about $250,000 in present value to raise a child, and the pill doesn't work 1 out of 1000 times, you should assume the child-rearing "cost" of each roll in the hay while on the pill is about $250.

Just so you enter your relationships with open eyes.

An interesting analysis, but based on flawed assumptions.

The failure rate statistics are for number of women per 100 using a type of birth control who become pregnant per year. Recently, such statistics are generally cited in pairs for each type of birth control: "real world" usage and optimal usage. For birth control types that require continual maintenance (the pill) or successful application each time (condoms, diaphrams, etc.) the real world failure rate is significantly higher. For more or less permenant forms (Norplant, IUD, snip) the failure rate is virtually identical.

The failure rate of the pill in ideal circumstances is indeed somewhere in the 1-2 per thousand range. Practically, however, it is more in the 50-80 per thousand, due to forgotten pills. The only forms that get to real world 1-2 per thousand are Norplant and IUDs (even snipping is less reliable).

How do I know all this crap? The baltspouse has been looking at alternatives to the pill, and all the literature she brought home from the GYN has these statistics in it.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by baltassoc
An interesting analysis, but based on flawed assumptions.

The failure rate statistics are for number of women per 100 using a type of birth control who become pregnant per year. Recently, such statistics are generally cited in pairs for each type of birth control: "real world" usage and optimal usage. For birth control types that require continual maintenance (the pill) or successful application each time (condoms, diaphrams, etc.) the real world failure rate is significantly higher. For more or less permenant forms (Norplant, IUD, snip) the failure rate is virtually identical.

The failure rate of the pill in ideal circumstances is indeed somewhere in the 1-2 per thousand range. Practically, however, it is more in the 50-80 per thousand, due to forgotten pills. The only forms that get to real world 1-2 per thousand are Norplant and IUDs (even snipping is less reliable).

How do I know all this crap? The baltspouse has been looking at alternatives to the pill, and all the literature she brought home from the GYN has these statistics in it.

What about tying? By snipping I'm assuming you mean vasectomy.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Not Me
I agree. When the mother's life is endangered by the pregnancy, then I think an abortion is her right. No one should have to die to save the life of another, even if that other person is your child. I and many others would of course choose to die if it would prevent the death of my child, but I understand that others would choose to let their child die rather than face death themselves. I don't have respect for people like that, but that isn't the issue.

Do you mean that the obligation you would feel to give your life to save the being inside you kicks in when the being inside you is able to survive outside you? Or does this obligation kick in at conception?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Not Me
What if it meant that you would get man boobs engorged with milk? Varicose viens? A lax pelvic floor leading to urinary incontinence later in life? Stretch marks? Saggy boobs? Hemmorrhoids? Excess skin on your abdomen that just hangs there?

Any other men who would do this?

Looking at my grandfathers, I'd say I'm headed for a couple of those without any kids to show for it. Hell, I've already got stretch marks (13 was a fun year, I'll tell you). With the exception of Sebby, the thought of physical deterioration (except maybe the bladder control thing) just isn't an issue.

This question is a no brainer for anybody happily married* with kids, almost certainly a no brainer for happily married men who want kids, and a pretty good shot for happily married men who don't want kids.

We'd all do it.

But I still think my wife, and my daughters, should have the right to obtain an abortion in a safe, legal environment.

*One could substitute long term committed for married throughout here.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
What about tying? By snipping I'm assuming you mean vasectomy.

Yes, I mean vasectomy (which I have no idea how to spell - I'm taking your word for it). According to the literature I was perusing last week, the two most effective forms of birth control are Norplant and hormonally treated IUDs, which appear to be almost identical in effectiveness (Norplant slightly better). Tube tying was on the list, but lower (but I don't think significantly lower- maybe 3 per 1000). I found this surprising.

ETA: the literature was not for Norplant, so I'm a little more inclined to trust the objectivity of the statistics.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Looking at my grandfathers, I'd say I'm headed for a couple of those without any kids to show for it. Hell, I've already got stretch marks (13 was a fun year, I'll tell you). With the exception of Sebby, the thought of physical deterioration (except maybe the bladder control thing) just isn't an issue.

You see, this I just don't get... Why is it considered OK to just "let it all slide" in this country? Saying you've had kids/tough job shouldn't be an excuse. Americans are wonderful blame deflectors. Somehow, a person's inexcusable allowance for physical self-deterioration has become the observer's shallowness. Its all the critic's fault. Interesting.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You see, this I just don't get... Why is it considered OK to just "let it all slide" in this country? Saying you've had kids/tough job shouldn't be an excuse. Americans are wonderful blame deflectors. Somehow, a person's inexcusable allowance for physical self-deterioration has become the observer's shallowness. Its all the critic's fault. Interesting.

I think it's a priority thing. Limited amount of time, lots of stuff to do, so you make priorities. I don't know about you, but for me to stay in reasonable shape takes a hell of a lot of work and time. I don't have kids, and I have set my priorties so a good forty five minutes of my day is dedicated to the gym. There have been times in my life where my priorities were not set like that, for a variety of reasons.

Frankly, my generating an income so I can pay my mortgage is a higher priority for me than having a perfect ass. So if my job (which is how I generate income, if you have another way of doing it, I'm all ears) has demands on me that make it difficult to get to the gym, I'm not going to make it to the gym. For other people, it's their kids.

Being in good shape and not letting is slide is obviously very high on your list of priorities. It's not going to be on everyone else's.