Abortions banned in South Dakota

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.

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.

>>1

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.

>>3

Fuck you spic, you totally missed my point.

I'm saying conservatives are pro-life, yet they do not want to support children after they are born.

I didn't say people should be aborted if their life will potentially suck. Learn English you third world piece of cocksucking shit, or GTFO.

>>4

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.

>>1
>>4
Eat some aborted fetuses for dinner,

>>5

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.

I'm all for abortion.

The abortion of everyone >>1-7 that is.

>>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.

>>9

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'.

>>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?

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.

>>11

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.

>>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."

Cats do all those things too.

>>14
excepts cats don't turn into humans.

>>1
HAY GUYS BUSH IZ GUVNER UV SOUTH DAKOTA KAY

Why should humans have more rights than cats?

>>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.

>>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.

>>19

18 here.I agree 100 percent,and so do doctors.

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.

The kind of trouble that starts civil wars.

>>21

Sorry but that should read "Abortion BANNED in a couple of states".

I'm pro-choice for economical/balanced ethics reasons.

>>14

Yeah and that's why we have animal cruelty laws. So whats your point?

>>18

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:

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1540914.htm

>>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.

>>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.

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.

>>25
That argument would be nil when people find out how to grow babies without wombs.

>>25

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.

>>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.

>>29
In the first sentence I meant to say "pro-lifers," not "pro-choicers." =/

Are you against abortion? Good, then don't have one.

Are you for choice? Good, then make the choice if necessary.

The end.

HEY GUYS, I AM FOR MURDER. SO I CAN MURDER WHEN I FEEL LIKE IT, RIGHT??

>>32

enjoy not having rights that the rest of the world enjoys. lol land of the free. yea right.

>>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

>>33
if murder is a right lolol

BUT LET US NOT DIGRESS.

sd = coathanger country

>>36

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 er cue even.. anyway you get the point

If we allow abortion we get stem cells. If we disallow it we get dead women in back alleys?

Choices, choices.

Fetuses are at least as dumb as tuna. The only reason we don't eat them is because placenta tastes rotten.