artik Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 I'm an advocate for con-abortion, and I just wanted to share some photes, completely one sided, to hear your comments. These are quite graphic so watch out. This is an open discussion, so both sides are welcome. This is a large problem in the United States, and we need it to stop! Many teens and young adults get abortions. Over 1,000,000 abortions are done in the US alone, each year. To reduce this risk, put into consideration of babies and give them a chance. This was taken from a Myspace.com bulletin, so if you've seen it on there, no I'm not trying to take credit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 are you a guy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qawee Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 I believe its ultimately up to a woman to decide whether or not to give birth along with when to give birth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 thats terrible no matter what your stance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllTheWrongWords Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 Well come on. If theres a fucking body, regardless of its brain activity or lack of anything else that would qualify it to be alive. Its fucking a killing. Last time I checked that was illegal. Thats not a fetus anymore. Its evidence Fuck loopholes in the system. All that is is a tiny baby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 So, I guess ATWW was all about saving Terry Schaivo... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllTheWrongWords Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 So' date=' I guess ATWW was all about saving Terry Schaivo...[/quote'] I have no idea what youre talking about but Id like to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mamerro Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 I'm sorry. I guess I may be coldhearted or something, but that doesn't generate any sort of sympathy from me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hashassian Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 I hate the motherfuckers who hold these signs outside of the postoffice...and chant at you with all there bullshit...I dont give 2 fucks what your opion is we dont need to see those fuckin disgusting pics and or hear your fucking voices at the top of your lungs...I personally dont care either way to me is it fine...but still I feel like running those fucks down with my truck every time I see those pics and think about how many little kids go in that post office and see those pics. imagine what they think....I dunno it just erks me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bokals.. Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 those pictures are horrible..... abortion should only be allowed for certain reasons... or in a certain period.. other than that its life being taken away.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 a tiny baby.. who would not be able to live on it's own outside a womb not too mention who is going to care for all these unwanted children? pro lifers often don't support welfare you can't have it both ways also, abortion is only allowed within a certain period. fuck the bleeding heart shit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 "pro lifers often don't support welfare you can't have it both ways" yeah you can. its called leaving the government out of peoples business. families did just fine, pre new deal. and abortions are still legal in some states, even when the baby is coming out of the birth canal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 haha that's a good one. prolifers don't support social programs that people who often get abortions would need to support said family. 'welfare queens' anyone? pre new deal was one thing. the united states has like, double the population that it did back then and i'm betting a larger proportion living below the poverty line. and besides all that, if the government needs to get out of people's business, then it needs to stop legislating medical decisions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 and if it's a moral issue then i suppose the government should get out of people's business. it's not a medical issue for the fetus either, since said fetus wouldn't have life in it were it outisde the womb. a fetus is a part of a pregnant woman's body Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 I have no idea what youre talking about but Id like to Well, Google her name and you'll find a TON of stuff. The story speaks directly to your point. As long as we're discussing reproduction rights... I think we need to 'destroy' all hamsters that eat their babies. Why should we suffer these murderers to live? Further, I think we should look into prosecuting ANY WOMAN who has a child that is even mildly retarded. If the evidence proves that beyond ALL doubt the woman didn't harm that babies development then she can be sterilized, the baby destroyed and THEN, only then, should the woman go free. Otherwise, we execute the 'bad mothers' and mutants at the same time. Also, when are we gonna start sterilizing the poor and the immigrants? We already have enough poor folks and immigrants are already less than human. AMERICA FOR AMERICANS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 man if half these people knew how many animals cannibalize their young ..... nah, it wouldnt change shit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artik Posted June 29, 2006 Author Share Posted June 29, 2006 I'm all for the mother and her decision, and termination would be much better than abortion, so there is not actual child, only the building blocks for one. Sounds hypocritical but that's how I feel. And naw, I'm a guy. I just saw this and was shocked. But hey, these images are doing their job aren't they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 "and besides all that, if the government needs to get out of people's business, then it needs to stop legislating medical decisions" well you know where i stand basically. the 10th amendment should be followed. in another words. no nationalized for or against abortion ruling. if its not enumerated in article 6, or in an amendment, sorry, not a federal issue. i do believe the states have a right to decide: 1. who is a human 2. whether they want to enact a law outlawing the killing of them or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 "and if it's a moral issue then i suppose the government should get out of people's business." true in effect. but just about every law is an expression of morals. "a fetus is a part of a pregnant woman's body" now if you hammer this enough, and start saying "the State has no right to dictate what someone does to thier own property..." then you will have a decent argument in my book. HOWEVER its the same argument that was used to justify slavery and federal protection of 'slave property.' this is where the right of the states to determine who is a person and who isnt comes in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 i just wanna say a couple things. first AOD- you really go for the literal application of constitutionality don't ya? Secondly- The concept that this is either right are wrong is sublimated by other issues as to the education of reproduction. I personally think it is the parent's responsibility to effectively educate their offspring as to the woes and tribulations of a sexual life. But in so much as for the last however many odd years within this country of non-education and chosen ignorance to the subject, it's no fucking wonder that so many people end up in these positions. Texas, has one of the highest teen birthrates in the country, why? Well perhaps its a correlation to the higher level of practicing religouns, or perhaps its the institutionalized non-education of students in their public systems about reproduction, or perhaps its a general social phenomena within the culture here. OR its a combination of them all. All of you arguing about whether or not the government needs to regulate this or that, the point is that until people, and state legislators are equally educated about all of these things, perhaps there should be some federal oversight. That is not to say that the american government isn't just as pigheaded about it. Right now we are seeing to abortion cases going to the supreme court. lets see how this one swings... I don't go out and fuck a bitch with out a condom, because my father told me from a young age that if i got some breezy pregnant, he'd beat the fuck outa me. not kill me cus kid needs a dad, but just beat the shit out of me. Even though he has never once laid a hand on me for anything, I understood the sincerity of the idea. That millions of people across this country don't have that level of interaction with their parents, or their parent's are apathetic, it makes sense that these things happen. Look at statistics of teenage birthrates and abortions in countries who widely regard sexual education as a prominent issue in developmental education. American is retarded from the top down when it comes to education, and in so much as the high levels of abortion and things occur, it is all reflective of that lack of education. To speak again of texas, when you have people whom have no interest in education but censoring it having the majority of the say in textbook revision. There is no way that people will have the chance to learn the things that they should. I say all of you who want to understand why these things are happening and why people seem apathetic to just bout everything, abortion included. Look into the education system. Look at how textbooks are adopted. Look at the impacting factors among children during their developmental stages. We abort so much because we are stupid, and all the better for it. This country does not need that many more ignorant people. I am in no way saying that the majority of the country needs not to have children, but that those that are making the desicion to abort have had some consideration of their ability to effectively raise that child. And in such, I trust that desicion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 gah, its amazing to think that i was on the conservative side of this discussion at school... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 "We abort so much because we are stupid, and all the better for it. This country does not need that many more ignorant people." see this scares me... what is bush with some new executive power he gets, decides that he wants to just wipe out 'ignorant' people because we 'dont need any more.' argue the pro abortion side all you want, but this just scares me. i'll comment further when i get home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 except slaves are not actually a part of a human being's body in the way that a fetus is inside a pouch which is physically attached to the uterine wall of a woman an actual internal bond. medical school provides some enlightenment on how fetuses differ from slaves haha i'm not going to go on with this argument i will mention however, if men could get pregnant this would be a non issue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 i knew i was gonna catch flack for that line. please dont misread. i dont mean in some sort of chosen genetic cleansing sort of way. i mean in so much as that our society breeds ignorance, and overcrowding is an issue. it is a de facto means of regulation by ourselves. just as symbols points out about other animals eating their young. we do this. i didnt mean some institutionalized form of genetic monitoring. that scares me as well. i mean in so much as we have the personal choice to abort, it is a natural form of species regulation. i wasnt saying that stupid people will have stupid children, just that anyone born in this society without good parents, will more than likely fall prey to the pitfalls of common society in america. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 medical school provides some enlightenment on how fetuses differ from slaves... Ain't it the truth! I can't get my foetus to do a lick a work! Btw, the AP is reporting that anti-abortion activists are opposed to the Buffet-Gates philanthropy thing... here's a quote: "The merger of Gates and Buffett may spell doom for the families of the developing world," said the Rev. Thomas Euteneuer, a Roman Catholic priest who is president of Human Life International. Referring to Josef Mengele, the infamous Nazi death camp doctor, Euteneuer said Buffett "will be known as the Dr. Mengele of philanthropy unless he repents." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 but i dont get it. why just stop at an abortion. why not just be able to kill a living 'born' baby as well? i know i know, its not part of the mother. but another argument of the pro abortion side is that those babies in the pictures wont be able to survive without a mother anyway. same with new borns. hell, a child cant actually survive by its self until they are what? 10? "you really go for the literal application of constitutionality don't ya?" as the days go buy, i have more and more sympathy with the opponents of the constitution in 1787. however, just like them, after it was ratified, it was the law. it was also meant to be read by simple people and was supposed to be a simple document. even the hamiltonians were pulling some "living document" stuff after it was ratified. of course they would be agast at what some courts are finding in that document now, but still. its just an extension of thier loose construction, centuries later. personally im about as pro life as you can get. i feel that governments are instituted to protect life, liberty and property. protecting the unborn should be a priority. however, in being true to the constitution, i believe it is a state issue. so i'll be fighting the religious right with the lefties for the sake of principal if they try to put a nation wide ban on abortion. but locally, i fight the pro life cause. roe v wade is more of a jurisdiction argument with me, as opposed to just a simple moral/religion question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 Think of it this way. If you look at the way roe v wade was interpreted it is comparable to the means that people are using to combat the proliferation of ten commandments within schools. its a logistical end to a moral issue. I went to a panel discussion a couple months ago about ID and evolution in schools. and one dude was arguing that it doesnt need to be attacked as an issue of seperation of church and state for it is just factually wrong. But i was trying to make the point to him that if you want to regulate such things against the opposition you must do it through the pathways given. Law is all precedent, just as interpretation of the constitution. thus anything that is either new will set new precedent, or fall under some previous one. Roe v wade was the use of an existing precedent to avoid the moral upheavel if the court had straight up said yeah, killing the fetus is straight. I think your also dragging the argument about killing a live child out a bit much in terms of killing them after birth. Even outside of the "it couldnt live" argument, birth itself is the recognition of new life. It is the confirming act of the progression of a species. Morality previous to that is a bit hard to talk bout. I think this all again falls to a very fundamental moral issue and question that is addressed simply as... is there some sort actual moral standard that applies to humans? You and I both may answer yes, but from different perspectives I would guess. I said it before and Ill say it again, I think morality is the rational choices we make as animals to ensure the furthering of our species. However, I recognize that interpretation allows for a very very large grey area. i guess im just babbling at this point. im gonna go play basketball... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 see, the 10 commandments thing, i see this a different way. the separation of church and state stuff, i could argue for years about that. it is super complex and i'll probably come at it from a super different standpoint than you would think. i dont think the 'ends justify the means.' look at the french revolution. they were looking for the ultimate liberal society. look what they had to do to get it, and look at what happened afterwards. religion in schools isnt really an issue for me, because i am against public schools to begin with. the simple fact is, the federal government shouldnt even be talking about abortion one way or the other. article 6 outlines what the the feds are supposed to be worried about. the roe decision is the perfect example of pure jacobinism. preaching about liberty and rights, but in the end using statist means to achieve a liberal position. "Law is all precedent, just as interpretation of the constitution. " your right. but it doesnt make it right. i see this simply as the frog and the kettle effect. the same applies to our lost liberties. if you simply turn the pot on full blast right away, the frog will jump out. if you slowly turn up the flame, the frog will start to just think hes taking a bath. next thing you know, he's belly up dead. same with our rights and liberties. if they take them away at once, we will resist, do it over 200 years, its just "stare decisis." its all relevant. income tax was proven unconstitutional (even after taxes were enacted) until the amendment passed during the progressive era. prayer was legal in school until a court said it was a violation of church and state. arent they violating the stare decisis rule? i could get into a big discussion about how i feel things should be handled... like unjust federal laws. nullifcation and secession, as laid out by thomas jefferson and james madison pop right into my head. why should the supreme court have the final say on "constitutionality" of a law? after all it is run by 9 non elected, virtually untouchable judges, on life term. judicial review isnt lined out in the constution. the greatest liberal (in a classical sense) of all time, with any power, Thomas Jefferson, was against it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 eh, i dont disagree. but if you are stuck within a specific set of perameters, fuck it use it when and how you can. while ideally i agree that its not an issue the feds need to deal with, i think its an issue no government, on whatever level should deal with. however that illicits a certain moral imperative again. I think we agree, fundamentally, on more things than it would seem by our conversations, but I think I am a bit less idealic than you. I don't expect people to appreciate the minutia of governmental procedure your discussing, so I expect the only way to encite change, outside of revolution, is within the parameters being used in the opposite direction. if government and those not with the interest of people in mind are using a certain procedure to advance their agenda's than we need to do the same. Talkin about how if people followed the government they way they should is nice, but I don't think right now its gonna work. Gotta move within the pathways available. I am not really saying the end justifies all means, but that if the benifit outways the means, then fuck it, do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 and please recognize im not talking on all issues, so dont extend it to some rediculous agenda. I mean only those issues which would actually help people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.