I love how Bush and friends don't give a shit about children (No Child Left Behind was propped up on proven false results and has been fought tooth and nail by teachers across the US), poor people, or jobs, yet saving the life of a fetus is No. 1 Priority.
It doesn't matter that the kid will grow up into a poor family, get a shit education, have increased college tuition that will put him/her in debt or avoid college, etc. Just saving that fetus is more important.
And now even women with medical conditions or rape victims can't get abortions. I love that logic - you'll die conceiving a child, but the child lives so that makes it OK.
Fuck Bush and his Nazi regime. Our goddamn founders had a seperation of Church and State for a reason.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-06 15:55
It doesn't matter that the kid will grow up into a poor family, get a shit education, have increased college tuition that will put him/her in debt or avoid college, etc. Just saving that fetus is more important.
That's a shitty argument. That someone will have a hypothetical shitty life does not entitle you to kill him.
Why not give the kid a chance to decide if his or her life is going to be shitty. Gee I was born in a third world shit hole, we lived in a single room and it was a good day if we got some butter...30 years later I earn a six figure salary and am doing pretty alright. Guess my mom should have aborted me going by your lame and selfish argument.
Who's being the Nazis again? They exterminated a bunch of people they didn't consider human as well.
Why should anyone support the kid when its the parents problem for not keeping it in their pants? Just because no one else will support them we should kill them? So what about homeless people and the poor, let's kill them all too, guess 'conservatives' should be doling out cash for them too otherwise oh noes they have to be killed?
And where did I say I was a spic, or is that the only place your limited American education taught you about? Over there is spic land that's where all the beans who jump fences come from??
And since you seem to be unable to even read your own post I'll quote it for you again here:
"It doesn't matter that the kid will grow up into a poor family, get a shit education, have increased college tuition that will put him/her in debt or avoid college, etc. Just saving that fetus is more important." = kill them so that they are not poor?
Though I must say reading your posts I think I might agree abortion is necessary in certain cases, like for example YOU.
Wow, you totally mindfucked me with that one. Yes, I fucked up. Here's what I meant:
"The Conservative point of view is that it doesn't matter that the kid will grow up into a poor family, get a shit education, have increased college tuition that will put him/her in debt or avoid college, etc. Just saving that fetus is more important."
Notice the first bit. My fat white Anglo fingers couldn't hit the keyboard fast enough for my stream of conscious dumping. That bit was how I feel the radical right thinks in their fetus-saving frenzy.
And yes, you aren't a spic. I have very loud and very drunk Mexican neighbors (the wifebeating kind, always a real treat) and used that for my required racial outburst.
>>1
Wrong, they are saying that aborting a fetus that can survive outside the womb is the equivalent of shooting a baby just after it has been born. Liberals are supposed to be against discrimination, except when it comes to us evil whites who failed to eliminate crime completely or evil unborn fetus' who are committing the appalling crime of absorbing nutrients from their mother it seems.
Of course everyone knows that 'liberals' are the biggest hypocrites on the planet, they will go nuts to save some murdering thug from death row, but wouldn't blink at killing off millions of babies.
Case in point they had a news piece on the BBC about the South Dakota law and they interviewed this one chick, who was 'zOMG one of the last women to have an abortion in SD' according to the overdramatization of that bastion of fair news the BBC (should be renamed the islamofacist appologist corporation, but that's another topic). And she was like I already have 4 kids and one is terminally ill, so *I* need this.
Like what the fuck is wrong with this bitch, she has 4 kids one is already dieing so why the fuck did she get herself pregnant again??? So now the baby has to die a painful death, for her selfishness and yes they do feel pain in the womb. Oh and she was white too, so not your stereotypical black welfare mom.
So according to >>1 we 'conservatives' should foot the bill for her? Why? Should I foot the bill for every business man who makes a bad decision and goes bust? How bout people who get into car accidents because of their bad decisions? see where I am going why is it our responsibility to fix someone elses bad decision?
So your argument is if we support life we should look after it? So why are all you liberals up in arms over the so called civilian deaths in Iraq? So by your own logic you should all be over there helping the Iraqi civilans, instead of sitting in your ivory towers passing judgement on the 'little people'.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-07 11:06
>>9 BBC should be renamed the islamofacist appologist corporation
NO U (minus the islamo bit).
"Like what the fuck is wrong with this bitch, she has 4 kids one is already dieing so why the fuck did she get herself pregnant again??? So now the baby has to die a painful death, for her selfishness and yes they do feel pain in the womb. Oh and she was white too, so not your stereotypical black welfare mom."
Because colour matters? LOL. How irrelevant.
Whilst inside the womb a "baby" is not a baby, and cannot be considered a human being or seperate entity from the mother, it's like she was trimming her toenails or cutting her hair.
Are eggs and sperm individually sacred too? Hair and nails?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-07 15:48
Whilst inside the womb a "baby" is not a baby, and cannot be considered a human being or seperate entity from the mother, it's like she was trimming her toenails or cutting her hair.
It always comes down to this, doesn't it? One side says that the baby is it's own independant being, that is, a fetus is no different from a newborn. The other side says that the fetus is not distinguishable from the mother.
>>7 "The Conservative point of view is that it doesn't matter that the kid will grow up into a poor family, get a shit education, have increased college tuition that will put him/her in debt or avoid college, etc. Just saving that fetus is more important."
Haha oh wow. You totally fail on top of your failure. You are apparently against the 'Conservative point of view' there which is that the fetus has the right to live a life, however shitty it is. So you are implying something like: killing a fetus is a good thing because they are poor and they will never grow up to be anything. Everyone knew what you meant.
Where to even start with your stupidity, ok lets take it this way, so 1 second before birth is that not a baby? 1 hour? 1 week? 1 month? where do you draw the line? Do you still not see how silly all this is?
Babies have been born several months premature and have survived to be perferctly normal healthy children and this grows more and more common, survival that is. So according to you they are still not 'human' since they were born prematurely?
Usually adept adults are trying to rationalize away the truth for their own convenience, if we pretend its not really a baby then we can kill it.
Even to take it further toe nails and hair do not have a separate consciousness, this is science BTW not religion it is scientifically proven that babies react to songs and sounds they hear from the womb, that they react to pain, increased brainwave activity and that they dream, among many other things so you sir are a complete idiot for even comparing the two.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-07 23:15
>>13 "Even to take it further toe nails and hair do not have a separate consciousness, this is science BTW not religion it is scientifically proven that babies react to songs and sounds they hear from the womb, that they react to pain, increased brainwave activity and that they dream, among many other things so you sir are a complete idiot for even comparing the two."
>>14
It is a womans right to choose.I know that abortions can be done way before the fetus actually even looks like a human.No ears no eyes,nothing.My girlfriend was abouot 2 months pregnant when she had an abortion.I was there every step of the way.The genecologist simple inserted a tube with vaccume-like suction up the vaginal canal,and sucked out an unrecognisable clump about the size of quater thumb.Of course I dont agree with having an abortion like 5 months into it,cause its already formed.The whole proceedier took about 15 minutes.You see.Noone waits till it is formed eyes and ears then say,ok,I think its time for an abortion.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-08 5:02
>>15
It doesn't matter what something will turn into. It matters what something already is. If you go back a few steps, you could argue that a sperm and an egg will eventually turn into a human, and therefore it is immoral to prevent conception. Let's outlaw condoms!
Or wait, let's go back even further. Take a random guy and a girl. They might have sex with each other! That sex might result in a child! It would be immoral, and equivalent to murder, for these two people to not meet up and have these hypothetical children. By not doing so, they would be denying life to one or perhaps even several unborn children.
A small clump of cells thriving inside the midsection of a woman is not a person. Whether or not it will turn into a person is irrelevant.
For me, it all boils down to this: If the "pro-lifers" really gave a shit about the lives of the poor, underclass there wouldn't be a need for abortion.
Unless you're going to start paying for the social programs the mother, the child (and maybe the father) will need to be apart of to get by in commerical capitalist America-- then you need to sit back and let the individual be responsible for may or may not happen to what may or may not be a person.
You want Abortion in a couple states? Fine. But try and constitutionalize it and you're asking for trouble.
WTF are you talking about? Many many arbortions are performed on 'formed' later term fetuses, they first suck out the brain and then cut it up and suck it out piece by piece.
And statistics show that the minor15 minute 'procedure' is most likely going to cause long term psychological problems for your GF. These BTW are statistics from an pro-choice professor:
>>19 we are not talkin about hypotheticals, we are talking about an already concieved human being who in most cases will be born perfectly healthy, so your argument is just being silly.
>>20 of course some doctors agree, they are the ones making $$ off the arbortion trade from the 'procedure' itself to all the tissue harvesting and research.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-08 12:49
>>24 "we are not talkin about hypotheticals, we are talking about an already concieved human being who in most cases will be born perfectly healthy, so your argument is just being silly."
My post was in response to someone who argued that fetuses/embryos/zygotes "turn into" humans, and therefore are not humans to begin with. If you want to argue that they are humans from the point of conception, then so be it. But don't take me out of context.
The main arguments on this issue seem to be thus: the pro-lifers claim that the mother has no right to terminate her pregnancy because the life being ended is that of a seperate human (or at least potentially human) entity. The pro-choicers claim the mother has the right to terminate her pregnancy because unborn baby is not yet seperate human with rights.
So how about this? If the "baby" can be removed from the mother's womb and still manage to live, then remove it rather than abort it (assuming, of course that the mother wants an abortion). If it isn't developed enough to do this, then abort it (or hopelessly attempt to keep it alive). I mean, if it is truly an independant living person, then it should be able to live without sucking nutrients from another being through its naval.
Name:
Black_Knight2006-03-08 13:22
However it should be noted that Micheal Moore also integrates satire and exageration to enhance his point for the people and said he is just stating his veiws and is not a mouthpeice for the left. Fox News is merely an adjunct of the Republican Party and intentional falsify information.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-08 15:02
>>25
That argument would be nil when people find out how to grow babies without wombs.
Again your argument makes no sense, so how long can a new born baby survive on its own without "sucking nutrients" from another being? When i say sucking I am talking care in general if left alone that baby will certainly die and that would be a murder or negligence case of some sort. Even toddlers, are they able to survive without adult care of some sort?
And yet again taking it to the next level how about the those adults who cannot take care of themselves, for example Christopher Reeve as his late wife was in the news, should he just have been killed? since without her or someone else's care there was no way for him to survive so he was "sucking nutrients" too.
So your argument that because the baby is dependant on the mother it is part of the mothers body and so her choice is illegitimate because by that argument parents should be allowed to kill their children after birth too. And a few on the extreme side of the abortion debate advocate just that.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-08 18:29
>>28
Yeah, but here's the difference: in the case of an unborn baby, only *one* person can continue its life, and according to the pro-choicers, that person is obligated to do so. In the case of all the things you mentioned, this isn't true. If a child has parents who don't want or are unable to care for him or her, then someone else can assume the role. Someone will undoubtedly take care of the child, whether it be the government or foster parents, but you can be sure that the person in that situation will be there by choice. If someone suffers from a disease or accident that leaves him unable to take care of himself, then, once again, it's the *choice* of people to take care of him.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-08 18:30
>>29
In the first sentence I meant to say "pro-lifers," not "pro-choicers." =/
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-08 19:02
Are you against abortion? Good, then don't have one.
Are you for choice? Good, then make the choice if necessary.
The end.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-08 19:59
HEY GUYS, I AM FOR MURDER. SO I CAN MURDER WHEN I FEEL LIKE IT, RIGHT??
enjoy not having rights that the rest of the world enjoys. lol land of the free. yea right.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-08 22:32
>>29
That is why I did not say parents but adults, my point is that a very young child will not survive without someone taking care of her or him, but by your argument that the unborn is dependant on someone thus it is that someone's choice whether the baby lives or not; it would not be a crime to kill that child if no one wanted her.
>>31 Like >>32 said then we should all be able to do whatever we please but we can't if it affects another person, this is the problem that normally competant adults refuse to see the scientific fact that the unborn baby is a person.
>>33 so what? the "right" to murder babies is something so much to be envied 9.9
Guess what abortion kills more women than so called "back alley" or coathanger abortions would, roughly 50% of all those aborted babies are female. Oh noes where's the outrage from the NOW hags, queue crickets chirping...
>>37
they're not babies, and they're definitely not women. they're tiny clumps of cells.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-09 10:51
>>40
I think we have gone over this "dumb" argument already and it has proven to be quite "dumb" to bring it up, because guess what a new born baby is no more smarter outside the womb than it was a few minutes ago inside or even a few weeks before however killing the former would be murder, but killing the latter is a "procedure".
And umm yeah I will type about eating fetuses on 4chan so everyone will think I'm so hardcore 9.9 lolz I think your mum called its bedtime little boy.
>>41 arbortion is not murder only because the law says so. If you recall Hitler killing a few million jews was not "murder" under their law, so just because the law says so doesn't make it so.
We're all "clumps of cells" so what's your point?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-09 10:55
>>42
are you still anti abortion in cases of rape and incest? after all a fetus is a fetus and it's not its fault how it was concieved. That's the problem with anti-abortion fags. They are hardly consistent.
Yes, after all as you say what did that child do wrong? Punish the perp.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-09 11:13
>>44
and who is going to foot the bill for bringing up the child that the mother didn't want in the first place?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-09 11:15
And what about the pain that the child and the mother will grow up being shunned by the community because of incest. You anti-abortion fags only seem to care about a bunch of cells.
>>46
You contradict yourself, so you care so much for the possible "pain" the child and mother will grow up with but you are more than ready to make sure the child never grows up in the first place?
Hey no one ever said life was easy, that's the problem in general with abortion it is a convinience like everything else in the cult of me. If *I* want it, it should be so, just like relationshsips and everything else that is falling apart my partner should be as perfect as I imagined them to be oh else oh woe this just won't work out. My job must just as perfect as I imagined or else...no one wants to work at anything or suffer and abortion is just an offshoot of that mentality; this baby will be a problem so just get rid of it. Utter depraved selfishness, and mostly from the left who claim to be such bastions of humanity and caring, hypocrites!
LOL didn't I tell you, you're mum called get to bed already...
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-09 12:00
>>49
so you're alright with a woman getting raped and not being able to get an abortion? you're a sad person. I just hope your wife or daughter gets raped someday. Perhaps then you will change your mind.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-09 14:07
How about this you anti-abortion fuckers. For every fetus that would have been aborted but hasn't you will have to pay the kids food, schooling and healthcare costs. I am sure the money is more than worth "saving a life". It's funny how you fuckers go on about how abortion is evil, until it directly affects you. So stop forcing your views on other people.
Here we go again, then if it was my view that killing whome ever pissed me off was ok would the cops be forcing their view on me when they came to arrest me?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-09 15:00
>>53
so you're alright with a woman getting raped and not being able to get an abortion? you're a sad person. I just hope your wife or daughter gets raped someday. Perhaps then you will change your mind.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-09 15:01
>>53
I hope you are anti death penalty as well lol. Otherwise that's some massive hypocrisy right thur.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-09 15:03
>>51
The bottom line is that 90% or higher abortions are performed for none of those reasons but on perfectly healthy women with perfectly healthy babies. So stop that murder first and we can debate the finer points of allowing it in cases of rape or incest.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-09 15:04
I am more than happy to see Abortion made illegal in USA, since I don't live in USA. It would bring a lot of money to the local economy in other countries as thousands of women travel just to get aborted.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-09 15:06
>>56
What's so a fine point about rape? A fetus is a fetus. In your view they should be all the same. You are just avoiding the question. Do you support abortion in case of rape or incest or not?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-09 15:07
>>58
where am I avoiding the question? I already answered >>44
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-09 15:09
>>59
Glad you care more about a bunch of cells than a human being.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-09 15:37
>>>39
i vote for deadwomen in back alleys ty very much!
Why should I be anti death penalty? There is a difference between being put to death for a crime and being put to death because it might inconvenience your mother just a little bit. Maybe she should have thought of that first before spreading her legs, and don't start the rape BS, because once again there is a far more serious problem if the millions of abortions performed were all due to rape and incest.
>> we're going in circles here, those cells are human beings, you are a bunch of cells so what makes you human? And why does that not apply to the unborn child?
>>57 At least you're being honest about it, wonder if those in power who are so pro abortion would be as forthcoming. Bottom line its big business.
A human is a human right? Murder is Murder right? lol Hyporcrisy. If you are anti-abortion then you should be anti-death penalty as well. fucking hypocrites.
Anyway these arguments are so old and tired, there is no hypocrasy at all, I support the right to life for the *innocent* unborn, and I support just punishment for those that deserve it up to and including death. How is that remotely hypocritical?
This is a silly red herring thrown in by those who know they defend the indefensible just to uphold their religion of choice.
It is obviously a religion for many who uphold it because they defend it in the face of scientific proofs to the contrary.
As >>67 pointed out the fetus is sentinet after only a few weeks, perhaps you all need a course in basic human reproduction??
>>66 a human being is just a bunch of cells, again I ask what makes us human? And what doesn't make a fetus human?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-11 5:38
>>69 >>68
Well, you do that lol. I will just stay in my country which is not USA and enjoy yet again one more right than Americans. Enjoy!
That's the problem, though. You think what makes us human is that we consider abortion inhuman. It's a psychological edge that the "pro-lifers" are after. You want to make it alright to kill in certain circumstances when in actuality it is wrong to kill in *any* circumstance.
The Ten Commandments are very clear on taking ANY lives. So are the teaches of Jesus Christ. If abortion is wrong and evil- then so is capital punishment. It's not for man to judge man. Only God can judge mankind.
What's even more sickening is that you do all of this in the name of morality and in the name of God. But the truth is- you'd be willing to cash in your beliefs for any circumstance.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-11 9:02
A fetus is not "just a cluster of cells" after 20 weeks. Selfish mothers just want to get away with murder so they don't have to go through a few months of pregnancy.
>>1 lost all credibility by resorting to name calling.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-12 0:51
>>71
I can think of many circumstances where it is very right to kill; defending yourself, defending your loved ones, defending your country,I am pretty sure evn the ten commandments allow that, by extension putting proven criminal to death is defending all those.
However I thought there was a separation of church and state in the USA, boy I guess the ACLU is going to be pissed when it finds out about all those laws against murder etc.
You see there are many atheists who are also against abortion, this is a purely scientific debate which happens to be supported by many religious people.
Is a fetus human that is the quesiton? And the answer is a resounding YES. Thus this is a human rights issue not a religious issue, though one can debate that we obtain human rights from the 'divine'.
So basicly all these people supporting the murder of the unborn are doing so ignoring the personhood of that unborn child, despite increasing scientific evidence to the contray.
And for what? Convenience, not rape not incest but just plain selfishness:
In a study conducted by the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute, entitled “Why Women Have Abortions,” women were asked to give specific reasons why they had an abortion. The top three answers were: 1. Unready for responsibility 2. Can't afford baby now 3. Concern about how having a baby would change her life. The three reasons, which came in last place and were tied at 1 percent included: 1. Was a victim of rape or incest 2. Husband or partner wanted the abortion 3. Didn't want others to know she has had sex or is pregnant. Studies and statistics consistently show that pregnancies due to rape and incest are rare. According to Guttmacher that 1% due to rape and incest is 14,000 babies per year. Therefore, abortion is not mainly used as a last resort.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 17:19
>>75
Which one of the commandment bylaws makes any of those circumstances necessary? Oh wait, there are just 10, and they have no room for loose contruction.
Thou shalt NOT kill. Its not "Thou shalt not kill unjustly, or in any cases that are not sanctioned by man as justifiable tools of sustaining society"
If killing a baby is selfish, how about war? War is based on lust for power, which is selfish in itself. Judging and sentencing a human being (a priviledge not given to you by god) implies that you esteem yourself worthy to do so. (Pride = selfishness)
The point that was attempted to be made was that only God has the wisdom to deal out justice, and decide what is right or wrong. Abortion may very well be wrong, but calling it so while endorsing war/death penalty is hypocritical.
Too many fuckers think they can create eutopia on earth, what morons.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 21:26
>>76 i thought this thread read "aboriginals banned in south dakota". but yes, right on. you go girl.
>>founders had a seperation of Church and State for a reason.
I think this is a good point. People who think abortion should be banned usually take their opinions from religion.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-16 17:53
>>79
Seperation of Church and State means that the State cannot have an official religion.
The founders had absolutely no problem with people having opinions based on their religion. They wanted freedom of religion which means that they welcomed people taking opinions from any religion.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-16 20:15
>>76
Liberal argument #1 "X IS BAD YET SOMEONE ELSE X'D WHO HAS THE SAME OPINION AS YOU, SO I SHOULD BE ABLE TO X WHENEVER I WANT!".
First off all: Retype that without the cruise control for cool.
Second: That's not a liberal argument. It's a common sensical one. If Abortion is wrong, so it capital punishment. We don't have a right to take a life- period. Our Lord YHWH and Jesus Christ our savior made that very clear. There's no escaping the ineffible word of God.