Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Featured Replies

  • Popular Post

my god, this thread.

the answer is clearly legal, safe, and rare for abortion. we should pull out all the stops: proper sex education, public funding of planned parenthood for people without access to a primary care physician, and free birth control for everyone. 

you want to control abortion? you attack the root causes. all pro-life people seem to want to do is address the endpoint. how about we not get to that endpoint, or at least attempt to limit those results? it's fairly basic. 

  • Replies 6.3k
  • Views 432.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • Bama Chick
    Bama Chick

    No. Fuck off with that. Not every abortion is about trauma and tragedy and using that framing plays into the christofascist’s hands. Women are humans. Humans have bodily autonomy. Ergo, women have b

  • Brisketexan
    Brisketexan

    I do love this argument. I really do. It’s as convenient a way to label yourself a drooling moron as exists, outside of towing around a giant neon “I’M A MORON” sign. No, they didn’t teach us that

  • hayden_horn
    hayden_horn

    of course you do. thing is, i would support that. if they choose that. and the real thing is, i'm actually pro life. both my sons were very premature, and had they been born in the 80s, they

Posted Images

On 12/16/2021 at 4:42 PM, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

who got a hold of Smax' account?

I've been asking this for a week.  Am I misremembering?  I feel like he was one of the trust fund kids that liked to take pot shots at the poor.  He seems like a genuinely good poster as of late.

my god, this thread.
the answer is clearly legal, safe, and rare for abortion. we should pull out all the stops: proper sex education, public funding of planned parenthood for people without access to a primary care physician, and free birth control for everyone. 
you want to control abortion? you attack the root causes. all pro-life people seem to want to do is address the endpoint. how about we not get to that endpoint, or at least attempt to limit those results? it's fairly basic. 

The Drug War is an example of why outlawing abortion will not reduce abortion. I say this all the time and no one listens.
my god, this thread.
the answer is clearly legal, safe, and rare for abortion. we should pull out all the stops: proper sex education, public funding of planned parenthood for people without access to a primary care physician, and free birth control for everyone. 
you want to control abortion? you attack the root causes. all pro-life people seem to want to do is address the endpoint. how about we not get to that endpoint, or at least attempt to limit those results? it's fairly basic. 

Abstinence only education means you don’t need any of what you just wrote. These assholes in charge don’t believe Women should have sex outside of marriage. Teaching anything besides abstinence goes against that and their puritanical insanity.
my god, this thread.
the answer is clearly legal, safe, and rare for abortion. we should pull out all the stops: proper sex education, public funding of planned parenthood for people without access to a primary care physician, and free birth control for everyone. 
you want to control abortion? you attack the root causes. all pro-life people seem to want to do is address the endpoint. how about we not get to that endpoint, or at least attempt to limit those results? it's fairly basic. 

The Drug War is an example of why outlawing abortion will not reduce abortion. I say this all the time and no one listens.
6 minutes ago, Woland said:

The Drug War is an example of why outlawing abortion will not reduce abortion. I say this all the time and no one listens.

You weren’t kidding. 

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

you attack the root causes. all pro-life people seem to want to do is address the endpoint.

conservatives rarely want to attack root causes because then they have to think about systemic problems and if there's such a thing as a systemic problem then there needs to be a systemic solution and if there needs to be a systemic solution then government has a reason for being.  and they definitely don't want that. 

3 minutes ago, elfenix said:

conservatives rarely want to attack root causes because then they have to think about systemic problems and if there's such a thing as a systemic problem then there needs to be a systemic solution and if there needs to be a systemic solution then government has a reason for being.  and they definitely don't want that. 

This is very much true and part of it, but they really just want to force women to have lots of babies and stay at home and raise them. That's how they think things are supposed to be and that we've fucked with the natural order of things by letting women work. 

21 minutes ago, elfenix said:

conservatives rarely want to attack root causes because then they have to think about systemic problems and if there's such a thing as a systemic problem then there needs to be a systemic solution and if there needs to be a systemic solution then government has a reason for being.  and they definitely don't want that. 

 

17 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This is very much true and part of it, but they really just want to force women to have lots of babies and stay at home and raise them. That's how they think things are supposed to be and that we've fucked with the natural order of things by letting women work. 

the-road-to-el-dorado-both.gif

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

This is very much true and part of it, but they really just want to force women to have lots of babies and stay at home and raise them. That's how they think things are supposed to be and that we've fucked with the natural order of things by letting women work. 

which has the desirable side effect of keeping people stupid and mired in poverty

32 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

which has the desirable side effect of keeping people stupid and mired in poverty

Also yes.

Now these last few posts, those are the way men should discuss abortion. Thank you, fellas.

On 12/15/2021 at 2:09 PM, trauma babe said:

Jfc, Ana. You literally said "eugenicists gonna eugenics" in response to a discussion of modern PP and not the historical underpinnings. Those underpinnings, again, are condemned by PP. 

Stop.

Bears a remarkable similarity to the Eyes of Texas beef.

4 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I've been asking this for a week.  Am I misremembering?  I feel like he was one of the trust fund kids that liked to take pot shots at the poor.  He seems like a genuinely good poster as of late.

He very clearly upthread noted that he’s been a part of one in the past. Probably gives you some perspective that might not necessarily align with other politics. 

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Bears a remarkable similarity to the Eyes of Texas beef.

I'd be interested in you expounding on that in either thread

1 hour ago, trauma babe said:

I'd be interested in you expounding on that in either thread

sketchy foundation, mostly forgotten. current organization would prefer to acknowledge and move on but its presence alone is troll fodder.

is that close, @TwiceHorn?

4 hours ago, trauma babe said:

I'd be interested in you expounding on that in either thread

Meaning, I can connect something that has no current or inherent racial bias (EOT, PP) to something or someone (Prather, REL, Margaret Sanger, eugenics, minstrel shows) that did or may have 100 years ago.

QED, it's bad and should be canceled or eradicated.

Edited by TwiceHorn

3 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

sketchy foundation, mostly forgotten. current organization would prefer to acknowledge and move on but its presence alone is troll fodder.

is that close, @TwiceHorn?

Yeah more or less.

57 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

More 5th Circuit ratfucking:

 

 

Supremes may have fucked around and let the 5th Circuit stick this pile of shit into an unreviewable box.

conservatives rarely want to attack root causes because then they have to think about systemic problems and if there's such a thing as a systemic problem then there needs to be a systemic solution and if there needs to be a systemic solution then government has a reason for being.  and they definitely don't want that. 
They're simple people that can only process simple solutions. Like building a wall to keep illegal immigrants out.

Once a solution involves more than 1, maybe 2, steps... they're lost
14 minutes ago, tchookem said:

They're simple people that can only process simple solutions. Like building a wall to keep illegal immigrants out.

Just say no!

42 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Supremes may have fucked around and let the 5th Circuit stick this pile of shit into an unreviewable box.

That was pretty clearly the majority's goal. Steve Vladeck called it the day of immediately upon reviewing SCOTUS's opinion.  

On 12/21/2021 at 11:00 AM, hayden_horn said:

my god, this thread.

the answer is clearly legal, safe, and rare for abortion. we should pull out all the stops: proper sex education, public funding of planned parenthood for people without access to a primary care physician, and free birth control for everyone. 

you want to control abortion? you attack the root causes. all pro-life people seem to want to do is address the endpoint. how about we not get to that endpoint, or at least attempt to limit those results? it's fairly basic. 

You know the answer.  It is because the pro-lifers really don't give a rats ass about life.  What they do want to do is exercise control.  Control over half of the population (women) which certain of the minority (men) believe are inferior and should be obedient and are no better than property.  

Edited by PenelopeWitherspoon

21 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Supremes may have fucked around and let the 5th Circuit stick this pile of shit into an unreviewable box.

can you expound a bit on that for those of us who are dumb?

19 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

You know the answer.  It is because the pro-lifers really don't give a rats ass about life.  What they do want to do is exercise control.  Control over half of the population (women) which certain of the minority (men) believe are inferior and should be obedient and are no better than property.  

And y'all gave @Anastasis a hard time for "Eugenicists gonna eugenicists."  

Give me a fucking break, you falsely-equivocating idiot

6 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

And y'all gave @Anastasis a hard time for "Eugenicists gonna eugenicists."  

Same same

2 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

Give me a fucking break, you falsely-equivocating idiot

"They just want to control women!" Keep parroting it, you might convince someone, I'm sure.

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

"They just want to control women!" Keep parroting it, you might convince someone, I'm sure.

Tell me how that's wrong?

Just now, capnamerca said:

Tell me how that's wrong?

He can’t. 

3 minutes ago, capnamerca said:

Tell me how that's wrong?

Cause the underlying thought is that it's only about control of women. People don't care if others have sex for the most part. It's how babies are made. It's the killing of the unborn. You can call it whatever, that's what they believe is happening. You can yell at people that they're trying to control women, they'd argue they're trying to save a baby. Y'all aren't trying to be eugenicists, they're not trying to control women. 

Can we agree to my last sentence? If not, we can't go further since people prescribing the worst from the get go.

Just now, workswithseed said:

You can yell at people that they're trying to control women, they'd argue they're trying to save a baby. Y'all aren't trying to be eugenicists, they're not trying to control women. 

Can we agree to my last sentence? If not, we can't go further since people prescribing the worst from the get go.

If they were trying to save a baby, they'd give a single solitary shit about that baby once it's born, and they clearly don't.

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

If they were trying to save a baby, they'd give a single solitary shit about that baby once it's born, and they clearly don't.

Or about social and welfare programs before women get pregnant. Or education services for under-served communities before women get pregnant. Or access to birth control. Or about a thousand other things that can help reduce abortion. 

 

But they don't care about those things either.

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

If they were trying to save a baby, they'd give a single solitary shit about that baby once it's born, and they clearly don't.

You're a eugenicist then. This gets us nowhere, but we said what we believe the worst of the outgroup. 

Just now, workswithseed said:

You're a eugenicist then. 

That's an interesting interpretation of my post.  Care to elaborate?

He can’t elaborate because he doesn’t understand what he’s saying, because he’s an idiot.

  • Popular Post
19 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Cause the underlying thought is that it's only about control of women. People don't care if others have sex for the most part. It's how babies are made. It's the killing of the unborn. You can call it whatever, that's what they believe is happening. You can yell at people that they're trying to control women, they'd argue they're trying to save a baby. Y'all aren't trying to be eugenicists, they're not trying to control women. 

Can we agree to my last sentence? If not, we can't go further since people prescribing the worst from the get go.

LOL.  I'd believe this whole 'protecting the unborn' shit if the R party (of today) didn't treat poor colored folk like complete garbage.  I'm not sure what circles you run in but there's plenty of people doing quite well in the R world that have zero problem making jokes about poor black people - in front of me, a brown dude.  I mean the worst shit you can imagine - BUT they don't say nigger.  So welcome to the new R party.  Because everyone knows if you don't actually say nigger, you can't be racist.  But I digress, you really believe these people care about unborn colored babies, but somehow magically give ZERO fucks about BORN colored babies?  WTF drugs are you on? 

Edited by ChiTownDoc

42 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

LOL.  I'd believe this whole 'protecting the unborn' shit if the R party (of today) didn't treat poor colored folk like complete garbage.  I'm not sure what circles you run in but there's plenty of people doing quite well in the R world that have zero problem making jokes about poor black people - in front of me, a brown dude.  I mean the worst shit you can imagine - BUT they don't say nigger.  So welcome to the new R party.  Because everyone knows if you don't actually say nigger, you can't be racist.  But I digress, you really believe these people care about unborn colored babies, but somehow magically give ZERO fucks about BORN colored babies?  WTF drugs are you on? 

Bravo, and bingo.  Was amazed by the shit I was privy to in rooms full of Repubs just because I look like a regular gringo.

Also, I have offered this deal to every loudmouth "pro-lifer" I know, and I've never had anyone say "I'd support that" -- would you agree to a policy with three elements: 1) no more abortion, 2) real sex education, discussing all aspects of sexual reproduction including birth control, and 3) free access to birth control?  Because that policy actually WOULD help reduce the hell out of abortions.

I don't even need to get into the next phase of "giving a single fuck about a baby after it's born."  We never even get past my proposal.  Because....as observed above....it's not about human life, it's about harsh enforcement of gender roles and "consequences" on slutty women who won't close their legs.....with zero consequences for the men who impregnate them.

Edited by Brisketexan

1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

Cause the underlying thought is that it's only about control of women. People don't care if others have sex for the most part. It's how babies are made. It's the killing of the unborn. You can call it whatever, that's what they believe is happening. You can yell at people that they're trying to control women, they'd argue they're trying to save a baby. Y'all aren't trying to be eugenicists, they're not trying to control women. 

Can we agree to my last sentence? If not, we can't go further since people prescribing the worst from the get go.

No we can’t agree to that because we don’t have our heads buried in the sand.

58 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

You're a eugenicist then. This gets us nowhere, but we said what we believe the worst of the outgroup. 

The fact that you don’t even understand the argument you are attempting to make  is pretty telling about your critical thinking skills.

1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

Y'all aren't trying to be eugenicists, they're not trying to control women. 

Can we agree to my last sentence? If not, we can't go further since people prescribing the worst from the get go.

If I lived in a state that didn't stand hard on the following two stances at the exact same time, maybe I could: 1) NO abortion, and 2) abstinence-only sex education.

Dude.  Come on.  The exact same people pushing item 1 are the exact same people who insist on item 2, and typically oppose birth control (or at the very least, any dissemination of information about birth control) to boot.

It's about puritanical morality -- that's LITERALLY what their positions are.  There is no "we must eliminate abortion, so let's do everything possible to get rid of it" approach, because that approach would CHAMPION sex education and contraception.

So, no, we cannot agree to your last sentence, because there is no such position of "we want to eliminate abortion, but not take measures that are puritanical controlling bullshit."

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

So, we solve anything on this thread yet?

Seems like we've all finally come to the conclusion that workswithseed isn't the smartest guy posting on Surly.

Me Waiting on the 20 minute YouTube vid that makes jerksforcum look smarty smarts. 
Still Waiting Office Tv GIF by The Office

  • Popular Post
3 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Cause the underlying thought is that it's only about control of women. People don't care if others have sex for the most part. It's how babies are made. It's the killing of the unborn. You can call it whatever, that's what they believe is happening. You can yell at people that they're trying to control women, they'd argue they're trying to save a baby. Y'all aren't trying to be eugenicists, they're not trying to control women. 

Can we agree to my last sentence? If not, we can't go further since people prescribing the worst from the get go.

You are really this stupid, aren't you.  

They don't care if women have sex, do they?

The architect of the Texas abortion law had this to say:

“Women can ‘control their reproductive lives’ without access to abortion; they can do so by refraining from sexual intercourse,” Mitchell wrote in the brief. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/17/texas-abortion-ban-jonathan-mitchell-supreme-court-brief

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/12/us/politics/texas-abortion-lawyer-jonathan-mitchell.html

Do us all a favor and shut the fuck up about things you obviously are completely ignorant about.  

 

  • Popular Post
25 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

You are really this stupid, aren't you.  

They don't care if women have sex, do they?

The architect of the Texas abortion law had this to say:

“Women can ‘control their reproductive lives’ without access to abortion; they can do so by refraining from sexual intercourse,” Mitchell wrote in the brief. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/17/texas-abortion-ban-jonathan-mitchell-supreme-court-brief

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/12/us/politics/texas-abortion-lawyer-jonathan-mitchell.html

Do us all a favor and shut the fuck up about things you obviously are completely ignorant about.  

 

Seems like that politician doesn’t want you to…work with seed.  
 

I’ll see myself out.  

7 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Seems like that politician doesn’t want you to…work with seed.  

It's been 10 years since Albert Pujols conducted a NASA experiment off Brad  Lidge in the NLCS | MLB.com

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

If I lived in a state that didn't stand hard on the following two stances at the exact same time, maybe I could: 1) NO abortion, and 2) abstinence-only sex education.

Dude.  Come on.  The exact same people pushing item 1 are the exact same people who insist on item 2, and typically oppose birth control (or at the very least, any dissemination of information about birth control) to boot.

It's about puritanical morality -- that's LITERALLY what their positions are.  There is no "we must eliminate abortion, so let's do everything possible to get rid of it" approach, because that approach would CHAMPION sex education and contraception.

So, no, we cannot agree to your last sentence, because there is no such position of "we want to eliminate abortion, but not take measures that are puritanical controlling bullshit."

 I will agree that when you believe that humans are being murdered at an astronomical rate, that there is a moral dilemma. You don't care who it hurts to stop innocent people from being killed. The fastest way to do that is top down government, which I don't think is good.

People who say that those people couldn't care about babies after they are born probably only think government is the only correct way to give. Most seem to think that there aren't private charities that do what they're asking for already, and since no one on the right is asking for more government intervention that way, they must not care. 

I'd argue that they don't believe that would get rid of abortion, or even reduce abortion. It would give more money towards a government program that would suck away thier charity donatiotn, and actually be run down by the beuracracy that is the government to end up to be less useful to the people they want to help. 

 

Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.