Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Abortion

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-24 7:26

I live in LA and right now, they are trying to pass a bill outlawing all abortions with the exception that it was cause by rape or incest and if it jeprodizes the mothers life.

Why is the government compromized mainly of white, old men who represent a small amount of the population. I don't think men should be able to make laws governing what a woman does with her body. I see early term abortions as getting rid of some very unwanted cells growing in ones body. What if I don't have the means of raising a child, what if I don't have the time to take away  from school to go through a few months of hell only to give up a child who makes me exponentially uglier and looser, what if I'm a crackwhore who would only make the child grow up the be fuck up and have a horrible, depressing life like all those /b/tards. I'm really scared that this law will be passed seeing how I live in a backwards, uber consevative state.

And also, North Caroline (maybe South I forget) is trying to pass a bill to ban all abortions that don't jeprodize the mothers lifes. WTF?

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 16:16

>>160
inner city lol

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 16:16

>>158

What are you retarded? Lets make this as simple as possible for your pea brain.

THE POOR ARE NOT KILLING THEMSELVES, I.E. THEY CHOOSE A LIFE OF POVERTY OVER DEATH - (I never stated anything about them dying from other causes, exagerated as that is in the USA, go to india or africa and witness actual poverty)

And who decides what is "poor". To Bill Gates we're all poor, should he put us all out of our missery?

The "poor" in America would be considered wealthy in many parts of the world, heck they get food, water, shelter, some form of transportation, electrcity, etc.

So whose definition of "poor" do we use to kill babies?

And so you cannot justify killing a baby because its going to be "poor", you have no right to decide that babies fate nor does the mother. Because if being poor were worse than death then all "poor" people would kill themselves.

is that clear now?

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 16:27

>>156

yes yes of course anything that doesn't fit you narrow selfish world view is a lie

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 16:38

Hmm another news article that highlights the absurdity of abortion:

Jury FindsThree Guilty of Beating Pregnant Woman
The Associated Press
Published: April 5, 2006
SACRAMENTO—Three people have been found guilty of beating a pregnant woman in an effort to kill the fetus her boyfriend did not want her to carry to term.

A Sacramento County jury convicted Terry Buford, Titenesha Russell and Dwayne Curry in the Sept. 25, 2004, attack, district attorney Jan Scully’s office said Tuesday.

The victim was 7 1/2 months pregnant with Buford’s child when the three took the victim to a park under the pretense of going to the movies, Scully’s office said. Instead, they beat her with a baseball bat, a metal flashlight, a garbage can and their hands and fists, causing serious head injuries.

As she lay unconscious, the defendants stripped her and searched her for money. They eventually dumped her by the side of a road, where she was found and taken to a hospital.

Doctors delivered the baby through an emergency Cesarian section and were able to resuscitate it.

Buford, Russell and Curry were convicted Monday of attempted murder of a fetus, assault with a deadly weapon to terminate a pregnancy, attempted robbery and kidnap for purposes of robbery. Buford and Russell also were found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.

All three face up to life in prison at a May 4 sentencing

*********

So how can you be charged with "attempted murder of a fetus" and allow abortion in the same country? The only difference is the mothers choice? Is this some kind of magic then? If a mother chooses to have the baby it is suddenly a person but if not by magic it is not one?

Pretty amazing mental blindness from those on the left who are always so much smarter and elite than the rest of those dumb plebs on the right.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 16:43

>>163
"yes yes of course anything that doesn't fit you narrow selfish world view is a lie"

Actually, that sounds like you.  No need to click a link that was obviously made by a religious nut.

If you care so much, pay for other people's vasectomies.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 17:42

>>155

NO. Wrong again Mr. Dumb Opinion! Stop "paraphrasing"- all you're doing is trying to distill down the mountain sized nugget of truth you refuse to address. It is a statistical *fact* that orphans very rarely become productive members of society. This includes children who's mothers decided to have them- father figure be damned.

It's sick and twisted that you SELFISHLY want these children to live to kill, rob and death-suckle other members of society to satisfy *your* need to feel like you're "Defending the innocents". Your ideals are flimsy and only half of a philsophy. If you're against evil, death, and the callous destruction of innocence then you should unilaterally against it. You should replace talk with action. IF you really care about children, you would be adopting all these unwanted kids. It's clear to any reasonable human being that in light of your willingness to explain away this ethical truth- you care more about seeing your ideals win out over everyone else's than you do about the subject itself- INNOCENT CHILDREN.

Practice what you preach, son. Otherwise: Why should any one listen to you and what you have to say?

And the people against against casual sex? All I have to say is that the proponent of this argument made the orgasm analogous to a spell from a fucking Square RPG game! Come the fuck on, guys. "HASTE"? Aging from an orgasm? HAHAHA- that's the gayest nerd shit I've heard since the fag-furry movement.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 17:58

>>166

Are you a god?

How do you know what these children are going to grow up to be.

And can you not see the hypocrasy in your own statements?

So I am sick and evil beccause I want to defend life only to defend my point of view, but you want to kill babies to defend yours? Who is sicker?

Guess you should be out there personally protecting every murder victim or every rape victim, etc., if you can't personally protect each and everyone of them then murder nor rape are wrong, this is what you call an argument?

So what you are saying is that if someone else doesn't want to take responsibility for your failings then you can do whatever you want.

All I say is be honest about it then, don't say they are not human, say we the superior ones want to wipe out the inferior or potentialy inferior humans, come out and say it. WE WANT TO KILL INFERIOR HUMAN BEINGS SO THEY DON'T MUG US IN THE FUTURE.

Not as easy to sell the truth is it?

Stop hiding behind "choice" cowards.

>>165

You're and idiot and fail at even basic reading, that is the link to the web page for the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League, thus the very term "godless" in their URL.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 18:11

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 18:30

>>168

what's you point? My link was to in response to being called a liar for saying there were non religious people opposed to abortion as well?

And everyone knows and stats back it up that the majority of abortions are performed on perfectly healthy women with a perfectly healthy fetus for nothing more than convenience, thus selfish to the utmost.

So while attempting to be compeling the sob story you link to is not the norm.

Besides you only help make my point that making this a religious issue is a smoke screen, why is outright murder wrong then, sure it says so in the bible, but is that why it is in the law?

And I can only shake my head at that first page, so because "god made all creatures" the guy claims we can't claim that the human fetus is gee guess what human? WTF is he on.

Maybe he missed something about how we even have rights against animal cruelty, leaving the finality of the death aside, abortion is quite painful, for some time now it has been well known that the unborn feels pain and many other sensations, so even on that level it is wrong.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 18:41

>>169

There are also people who are non-religious who are pro-choice and pro-death penalty.  What's your point?  I don't know where you live but the majority of the abortion protesters use Bible verses on their signs.  Don't try to say it's not a religious issue to most of these Pro-lifers.

Name: anti-chan 2006-04-07 20:10

>>167

Are you god?

Compared to you? YES.

How do you know what these children are going to grow up to be.

Facts, statistics, you know: More than some pathetic notion of hope that one orphan out of the millions will go to college and get a liberal arts degree and be "alright". Like I said: I don't see you refuting the facts about these kids. Maybes, the perception of "protecting babies" and wishful FEELINGS does not void the COLD HARD reality of what happens to a VAST majority of these unwanted kids. Save your emotional arguments for the Oprah Winfrey show, faggot.

And can you not see the hypocrasy in your own statements?

You can't even spell hypocrisy! The thing is: YOU don't know what these kids will be, but HISTORY, FACTS and STATS blow all that shit you're spewin' out of the fucking water.

The thing is: The kinds of abortions YOU'RE talking about don't even fucking exist anymore. These aren't the 60's! We don't abort humanoid growths past a certain term. How the fuck would the growth feel pain when it doesn't even have a BRAIN?

I hope you're trolling and not actually this fucking retarded.


Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 23:04

>>171

Care to point out to me the law where abortion is limited to a certain term, and what term would that be?

IIRC even the "partial birth" abortion ban was thrown out so you can abort pretty much up to birth.

And go read freaking biology book while you are busy correcting my spelling on hte interweb of all places, last refuge of the argument less, start picking on typos how lame.

"At 3.5 weeks: the fetus will have formed the heart, begins development of the brain and spinal cordstarts forming the gastrointestinal tract "

"At 8.5 weeks: the embryo now resembles a human facial features continue to develop beginnings of external genitalia form anal passage opens, but the rectal membrane is intact circulation through the umbilical cord is well developedlong bones begin to form"

3.5 weeks is pretty much when you even notice you are pregnant if you don't take a test etc, so you are telling me most abortions happen before 3 week of gestation? go fail some more.

So statistics also tell us there are a lot of poor people all over the planet already living should we go kill them all? Since poor = automaticaly criminal to you? And again I ask you whose definition of poor are we to use.

And anyway your argument seems to be on a different level you accept these are 'kids' but they should be killed anyway since they are poor?

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 23:14

>>170

So why is murder illegal, just because it says so in the Bible and probably most religious people feel it is wrong because of that, does it make it any less wrong if it was not in the Bible?

Just because religious people use their religous convictions to say something is wrong does not mean it is not wrong on just a human level.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 23:43

>>172

You must not live in America. 1995 AND 2003 called:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-birth_abortion

Secondly, brain or no brain, babies still can't feel pain. It's a well known consensus in the scientific community that a fetus needs certain synaptic connection within the brain and nervous system. And they aren't formed until the THIRD TRIMESTER. And hey, idiot, guess which type of abortions require you to be in the Thrid Trimester? PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS.

The only people who think contrary to this are pro-lifers who can't be trusted for an objective opinion by proxy of their retarded bias.

Did I say kill all poor people, you fucking idiot? Newflash: It's the mother that is poor- not the baby. It is the lack of funding to state ophanages that make them poor- not the baby.

And hey, did I say poor = criminal? No, I said: Poor, no father/no parents = more of a probability of being a criminal. You can keep building strawmen you little child, I'm just going to keep kickin' em over like their sand castles at the beach and then I'm going to spend the rest of the afternoon throwing empty cans of beer at your mishapen, hick- head.

Face it: You fail, bitch.

And in addition you got totally owned.

TOTALOWNED

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 23:51

>>173

There's a place where religion allows murder.  It's called the Middle East.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 1:26

>>175

Remember: It's also called America.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 1:44

>>176

If you kick out all the religious freaks, it will be paradise.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 1:53

>>174

Ok so your argument is that a baby born to a poor familly is "probably" going to be poor itself and probably become a criminal and so should be killed?

So the inference from that is that poor people will probably become cirminals and so should also be killed. Or do you not see the conclusions of your own arguments? Are you still reduced to playing games with words?

Here is a little definition for you then:

probably

adv 1: with considerable certainty; without much doubt

Which if your addled brain can't quite fathom means you said most people born to poor famillies and thus poor people will be criminals.

I am being childlike? You still have not even answered my first statement, you are in fact agreeing that the unborn is a child and only should be killed because it will "probably" grow up to be a criminal, just like the Nazi's killed a bunch of Jews because they probably were up to no good.

And so from everything you say and write I see you are just a smug elitist who things you know what is good for everyone else, looking down on the poor because gee they are all going to be criminals "probably" so their ofspring should be wiped out. And anyone who disagrees with you is immediately a "hick" and dumb lol. I'm not even white dumbass.

And talking about trust, so I should trust those who speak from the arbortion industry making millions through the death of innocents but not trust pro-lifers because oh no they must have a bias, how comical is that, of course only those on the left are beholden to the truth, only they are enlightened enough to guide us poor dumb sobs.

And just to cover more of the "pain" issue it is not so clear as you make it sound:

1997: Statement by Dr. Paul Ranalli:
Dr. Ranalli is a neurologist at the University of Toronto, in Toronto Canada. He is acting president of the de Veber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research. He gave a presentation called "Pain, Fetal Development, and Partial-birth abortion" on 1997-JUN-27 to the House Judiciary Committee of the State of Ohio. 2,3 He has concluded that the "spino-thalamic" system is fully developed at about 12 to 14 weeks of gestation. This is the system that conveys pain signals from pain receptors throughout the body to the thalamus. He apparently believes that the thalamus can feel pain, even though a connection between it and the cortex is missing.

To support his belief that a fetus in the second trimester can feel pain, he cites three signs:

 A fetus will "withdraw from painful stimulation"
 Two types of stress hormones which are detected in adults who are feeling pain are also found in a fetus from when a blood sample is withdrawn. He quotes:  Nicholas Fisk of London, England who observed this reaction as early as 19 weeks 4, and
 J Partch of Kiel, Germany who observed it at 16 weeks.
 



2000: Commission of Inquiry into Fetal Sentience:
The House of Lords in Britain conducted an inquiry into "fetal sentience." 5 One part of the study dealt with the ability of a fetus to feel pain. Conventional wisdom among researchers is that the brain's cortex is the only location where pain can be felt. However, they mention recent evidence that if an adult suffers from an injury or disease which causes the cortex to function poorly, that some sensation may be felt from an area lower in the brain. They speculate that a fetus may be able to sense some "form of pain sensation or suffering" before the cortex is linked to the lower levels of the brain. They note that babies who are born with a major brain defect can sometimes feel pain. This includes babies born with hydranencephaly in which "the cerebral hemispheres are substantially or entirely absent at birth" and anencephaly, in which "the cerebral hemispheres and the top of the skull may be absent."

They concluded:

 "After 23 weeks of growth, higher areas of the brain are active and starting to form connections with nerves that will convey pain signals to the cortex."
 "By 24 weeks after conception the brain is sufficiently developed to process signals received via the thalamus in the cortex."
 "While the capacity for an experience of pain comparable to that in a newborn baby is certainly present by 24 weeks after conception, there are conflicting views about the sensations experienced in the earlier stages of development. The current scientific understanding is that 6 weeks after conception the elements of the nervous system start to function. Most scientists currently agree that this marks the earliest possible point at which sensation might occur."6



2000: Statement by Vivette Glover:
Professor Glover of Queen Charlotte and Chelsea hospitals in London, UK, believes that there is a possibility that a fetus aged 18 weeks can feel pain. On 2000-AUG, she recommended that late pregnancy terminations be done under anesthetic. She suspects that the fetus would not respond to sensations in the same way as newborns. It is unlikely to produce the feelings of anxiety that people have. 10



2001: Statement by a panel of experts in the UK:
The issue of fetal pain was addressed by a working group appointed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in the United Kingdom. The panel consisted of experts in fetal development, law and bioethics. Dr. Anne McLaren headed the group. She commented: "Fetal awareness of pain is a very emotive topic, of particular concern to pregnant women, but we have tried to approach it without preconceptions, to examine the scientific evidence dispassionately, and to identify areas where further research is urgently needed.'' 1

The group determined that pain can only be felt by a fetus after nerve connections became established between two parts of its brain: the cortex and the thalamus. This happens about 26 weeks from conception.  Professor Maria Fitzgerald of University College London, author of the working group's report, says that "little sensory input" reaches the brain of the developing fetus before 26 weeks. "Therefore reactions to noxious stimuli cannot be interpreted as feeling or perceiving pain." 10

They recommended that the administration of painkillers should be considered before an abortion for any fetus which is 24 or more weeks since conception. This would give a 2 week safety factor in case the date of conception is incorrectly calculated.

Recent statistics show that of the 177,225 abortions performed in Britain during a recent year, only 92 (0.05%) occurred after 24 weeks.



2001: Statement by the Medical Research Council at Edinburgh University, UK:
According to Fox News for 2001-AUG-31, the Council's study revealed that "a fetus was absolutely aware of pain by 24 weeks." This is earlier than the 26 weeks previously generally accepted by medical specialists.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 5:02

>So the inference from that is that poor people will probably become cirminals and so should also be killed. Or do you not see the conclusions of your own arguments?

I don't honestly see the problem; you're certainly not in favor of keeping them on welfare and allowing them to breed like the roaches they are, are you?

Name: anti-chan 2006-04-08 11:39

>>178

Listen and listen very carefully. My argument is exactly what it is. By "inferring" and constantly asking
"what my argument is"- you're purposefully not paying attention to the facts and purposefully trying to re-frame the debate. You must respond to my argument at FACE VALUE and not what you "think" it is.

READ AND RESPOND:

LIFE

The unborn isn't a child/baby/human. You don't get to decide what's "human". You certainly don't get to decide what's "alive" in the humanistic sense of the word. Building upon this point- the growth in the womb is a life in the same sense that a plant is living or animals are living.

Should we stop killing cows and chopping down trees and digging up carrots because they are "living"? No, of course not because the end justifies the means. This line of thinking works whenever a war pops up or we speak about capital punishment. We kill innocents now, where are their defenders? Lack of funding to social programs leave children and their families to starve- here and abroad. And when this child, lacking of a proper upbringing, goes on a rampage of rape and murder- will you be willing to take his life?

The thing is, as proven by human history: The idea of human life having value is flimsy at best, BECAUSE people like you refuse to make it absolute. If human life has value, then ALL human life has value. As long as you adhere to capital punishment you put the concept of human life having value in doubt. This is why your argument continuosly fails. You expect people to conform to the inherant value in being alive, when you implictly don't believe that yourself.

These are things you refuse to confront in yourself out of fear of their implications. Basically: You're a coward.

Here is a link to statistics of these unborn children: http://www.divorcereform.org/crime.html

I doubt you'll have anything to say.

Like I said about Pain: The only people who utter these outright lies about the ability for the human growth to feel pain are pro-lifers. Every other objective reasearcher says otherwise. It IS clear cut- it is not some foggy assertion because a couple of wackos feel like saying otherwise.


Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 11:40

>>178

I also have one more question for you: I know you said you're not religous and that's fine...but I'm interested in something.

Do you believe that human beings have souls?

It's a loaded question, I'll admit. But it must be answer before we continue.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 12:31

>>181
Nope.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 12:32

>>182
Yes.  Science has found no reason to believe that there's anything other than phenomena of the meat going on with regards to consciousness.  We've found bits of meat for every emotion known to man, and for most of the logic functions. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 12:33

>>183
You still haven't found one particular center of the brain that controls conscoiusness though.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 12:36

>>184
What a stupid statement.  Consciousness includes every part of the brain we know about; consciousness is a construct formed by memory, executive functions, and sensation going on at the same time.  We don't need to find a "center" of consciousness to know that it's a function of the flesh. 

Name: anti-chan 2006-04-08 12:36

>>182
>>183
>>184

What? Guys, guys, guys...can you all, like, shut the fuck up for a second? I'm asking >>178.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 13:47

>>173, >>175
yep. america

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 18:39

>>The unborn isn't a child/baby/human.

Yes it is, but you keep lying to yourself. Fetuses go through all the life processes, to say they are not alive means to completely rewrite the definition of what life is. And it’s called a human fetus for a reason retard.  People don’t give birth to frogs contrary to some of the posts in this thread.

>>As long as you adhere to capital punishment you put the concept of human life having value in doubt. This is why your argument continuosly fails.

This is how it works. If a person doesn’t do anything wrong they are allowed to live in society. But when they rape and murder a 5 year old they lose their value because they are fuckwads. Is that so hard to understand? 

>>Here is a link to statistics of these unborn children:

This from the same person who made hundreds of posts defending blacks? By your logic let’s kill all the blacks; after all they commit crime at a much higher rate then Asians or Whites.

Basically: You're a coward.
 

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 20:49

>>188

Your agrument fails really hard. What the fuck does the race thread have to with this one? OMG Izzat a strawman? Your argument is weak as fuck and in no way refutes a fucking word of what is said in those links. I'll take this as your omission of and apology for ultimate failure.

This is how it works. If a person doesn’t do anything wrong they are allowed to live in society. But when they rape and murder a 5 year old they lose their value because they are fuckwads. Is that so hard to understand?

Either human life has value or it doesn't. I'm not talking about fucking rapists, you dipshit. I'm talking about other innocents who you could give a shit less about. Innocents that are living in America. Innocents that are subject to numerous abuses due to your sick obsession with what a woman does with her own womb. You don't want your girlfriend or wife to abort your kid- then fine- let's talk. But you and you kind don't own a strange woman's womb and to pretend otherwise is an infringement on her human right.

AND before you say it: the unborn don't have any rights unless the father want it to live. It's not human, the only people disagree are pro-lifers who will NEVER listen to science.

If you feel capital punishment and abortion are exclusive then your brain should be *just* big enough to grasp that you can enforce murder laws- but nationalising a person's body and controlling it are two exlusive ideals. It's immeasurably shortsighted and hypocritical of you to be for "letting these children live" and then against social programs that would stop them from becoming rapist.

Why is it so hard to understand that most of the people who commit crimes worthy of capital punishmeant COME FROM FUCKED UP FAMILIES WHERE THEY SHOULD'VE BEEN ABORTED. Is that so hard to understand?

Apparently so.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 21:50

>> OMG Izzat a strawman?

Nope retard, it isn’t. You posted those crime statistics to back up your argument about abortion. So why not kill all niggers too? After all they commit more crime.


>>Either human life has value or it doesn't.

It does until someone squanders it. Paintings have value until you take a dump on it, and people have value until they squander it as well.


>>infringement on her human right.

Lolz I call evything I want a human right lololol


>>It's not human, the only people disagree are pro-lifers who will NEVER listen to science.

You are the one who is ignoring science. Fetuses go through all of the life processes so it’s living by any working definition. And they call it a human fetus for a reason. People don’t give birth to cats and dog.

You can burry your head in the sand all you want but you are still retard.

>>it's immeasurably shortsighted and hypocritical of you to be for "letting these children live" and then against social programs that would stop them from becoming rapist.

You know what social program I am for or against?

NICE MIND READING!11!1

>>Why is it so hard to understand that most of the people who commit crimes worthy of capital punishmeant COME FROM FUCKED UP FAMILIES WHERE THEY SHOULD'VE BEEN ABORTED. Is that so hard to understand?

Once aging lets kill all the niggers, or at least force them all to have abortions.

Oh wait your just one of those hypocrites who wants to murder anyone they find inconvenient, even if they are the source of the inconvenience.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 22:40

>>190

Too bad this subject isn't about "niggers", my white supremacist friend. It's about abortions- not race. So guess what? [b]It's a fucking strawman, stupid.

Second: You aren't a good judge of when someone "Squanders" their life. It's subjective, not objective. That's why you keep ignoring any argument that says it's OK for you not to have an abortion while at the same time it's OK for someone to have one. It's why you keep ignoring statement pretaining to a woman's body being nationalized. People are not the property of the state. The state is the property of the people.

*I* call everything I want a "human right"? NO. YOU call everything you want a human right. You argument would be apt if we considered anything before the third trimester to be human, but we (the scientific community) don't- so it looks like you're  shit out of luck, son.[ "Life processes" does not a life make.

And yet AGAIN, you refuse to address the fact that birthing these fetuses into an environment where the chances of them harming society and filling up prisons because they're unwanted or raised by idiots- is a form of torture.

You refuse to address the fact that your protection doesn't extend to innocents who are alive and kickin'. What about other things that are alive, but we kill anyway out of convenience, hum? See: You will ALWAYS lose when you can't adequately address these issues.

Finally, you don't seem to understand the argument. This isn't about mandatory abortions. This is about choice. The choice of whether to have an abortion or not. You're trying to deny choice and that's why you're seen as a fucking whack job who's sticking his nose where it doesn't belong.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 22:43

>>190


By the way, I know what social programs you are for and against by proxy of your inability to address the fact that living innocents are dying and you're not stick up for them. I know what you're all about because you believe in capital punishment. You're liberal use of the word nigger and you're against the fundamental RIGHT for someone to make a choice.

You're FOOLISH enough to think abortions are just going to stop at the drop of a hat. Women were aborting their fetus in anicent GREECE, you stupid retarded fuckbrain.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 23:08

>>190

You're from the Bible Belt, aren't you?  Please worry about your unemployment problem first.  $$$ = More food for the babies!

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 23:52

>>*I* call everything I want a "human right"? NO. YOU call everything you want a human right.

I have not even used that word fag face. Nice try.

>>but we (the scientific community) don't- so it looks like you're  shit out of luck, son.[ "Life processes" does not a life make.

Lol, you are not part of the scientific community, you just some fuck on 4chan. Get back to reality you self absorbed twit.

And the statement “’Life processes’ does not a life make.” is retarded even by 4chan standards. Then what does oh great master scientist of the universe?


>>And yet AGAIN, you refuse to address the fact that birthing these fetuses into an environment where the chances of them harming society and filling up prisons because they're unwanted or raised by idiots- is a form of torture.

Then why not kill kids who are alive and in bad homes? Surely they are being tortured and we should put this to an end.

>>You refuse to address the fact that your protection doesn't extend to innocents who are alive and kickin'.

WTF does that even mean. Half of your post is just nondescript shit to hide your stupidity.

>>What about other things that are alive, but we kill anyway out of convenience, hum? See: You will ALWAYS lose when you can't adequately address these issues.

What the fuck are you talking about? Killing animals is not the same as killing people PETA fag.

>>By the way, I know what social programs you are for and against by proxy of your inability to address the fact that living innocents are dying and you're not stick up for them.

Not sticking up for whom? This just fucking retarded. I have only made two posts in this thread so if you are trying to connect me to someone else you fail it retard.

>>Women were aborting their fetus in anicent GREECE, you stupid retarded fuckbrain.

What does the time of something have to do with rather or not it is wrong? No point in making arson illegal, after all its being going on 10000000000000 years right? You stupid cock.

>>You're from the Bible Belt, aren't you? 

Upstate New York fag, you fail for trying to be some geographical snob fag.  

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-09 0:33

Then why not kill kids who are alive and in bad homes?

Because they're alive, you fuckbrain!!

Upstate New York fag

Yep, that about sums it up. You're a kike faggot from upstate. Newflash: People in your own state fucking hate your guts.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-09 1:11

>>195

lol best reply you could muster. I’m glad you just game up retard.

Now go on about how you already won, and how smart you are, and all the other bullshit you fool yourself into believing.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-09 1:19

>>192
You're FOOLISH enough to think abortions are just going to stop at the drop of a hat. Women were aborting their fetus in anicent GREECE, you stupid retarded fuckbrain.

LOL so dumb. Just replace abortion with murder (or anything there are laws against, for that matter) and see how that argument holds up.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-09 1:20

You know, you could probably have a more coherent discussion without so many ad hominem insults.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-09 1:51

>>197

Capital punishment is still legal in America.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-09 2:17

>>199
So killing people who murder others is murder? Moral relativism is a wonderful thing!

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List