Abortion

[!@#$%]

aod..naw, i'm talking about survival on neonatal incubator style life support

vs

say, being abloe to nurse off a woman who isn't your mom and survive, or even just be fed off formula.

 

it goes to show how conditioned people are too

to think that a newborn baby could not survive with only the care of a father.

 

and why stop there?

because people are uncomfortable with the idea of murder.

although we do have stipulations in law making it legal sometimes..justifiable homicide, and self defense,even alternative designations like degrees of murder and manslaughter, etc

so even our law system recognizes that not all murder is created equal.

 

liek for example, when it isn't even another person yet, it is still another part of a woman's body

[Smart]

so even our law system recognizes that not all murder is created equal.

 

capital punishment... for another example.

[LIVERWURST*]

Pictures like this demand three questions that seems avoided more often than not:

 

 

1) Could some of the more developed fetuses been aborted to save the life of the mother? There is no info on the story behind the abortion...

 

2) With the others - would the child have lived a life that was anything from poor and painful through poverty and the unreadiness of the mother?

 

3) Would the people who seem to love pictures like that be willing to open a free day care and resource center for the mothers of such children? I haven't seen many...

[angelofdeath]

"With the others - would the child have lived a life that was anything from poor and painful through poverty and the unreadiness of the mother?"

 

to me this is a bad way to argue the pro abortion case. what would you rather be:

 

a) dead

or

b) alive, but without central AC in your house.

[angelofdeath]

The Libertarian Case Against Abortion

 

by Bill Barnwell

by Bill Barnwell

 

 

 

Is holding a pro-life position inherently inconsistent with libertarian philosophy? Many libertarians seem to think so. Abortion, according to them, is forced and legislated morality defended by big-government conservatives who want to impose their faith and morals on the rest of an unwilling society. Not only that, it is statist in that it invalidates a mother’s right to terminate a pregnancy. The State now trumps parental rights and decides for the mother against her will that she must bring a child into the world.

 

Is this, however, the full story? I argue that it is absolutely not. Rather than being a liberating, pro-freedom expression of personal choice against government intrusion, the "right" to abortion is itself a statist measure completely consistent with left-wing ideology of how society and government should function. It does nothing to advance the cause of freedom. It instead drastically sets the principles of freedom and personal responsibility light-years back. Therefore, the pro-life position is not only completely consistent with libertarian philosophy, but it is much more consistently libertarian than the alternative position outlined above.

 

Two basic pillars of libertarianism are personal freedom and an aversion to aggression. Libertarians rightly do not believe that people should be compelled to make decisions by the government. Even Christian libertarians, such as myself, who are morally opposed to activities such as smoking, drunkenness and homosexual behavior, still realize that it is not the proper role of the State to try to dictate to adults whether or not they should smoke. Nor does it make much sense for the State to patrol people’s bedrooms to make sure they aren’t engaging in sodomy. While many people view such habits as destructive, they can also look at the empirical evidence from history and realize that the State has a very bad track record trying to intervene in such matters (Prohibition, anyone?).

 

On aggression, libertarians have long been champions against governmental coercion and unprovoked harm. Libertarians oppose unprovoked, immoral military aggression against foreign countries that are hardly waged in the name of defense. Likewise, libertarians oppose personal aggression that threatens ones life or property. Not only that, but governmental aggression against an individual’s pursuit of economic liberty is denounced rightly as aggression. This principle of non-aggression is innately tied to the concept of personal freedom and liberty. No outside governmental force has the right to compel or coerce another person’s personal behavior through the force of the State. Also, the State is immorally engaging in aggression when it sanctions murder or other forms of personal harm against its own or even foreign inhabitants for non-defensive reasons.

 

The previous two paragraphs outlining the principles of personal freedom and non-aggression seem, at first, to validate and support the pro-abortion position as described in the beginning of this essay. Yet when one looks at the total picture they will see that they do not. The government sanctioning of abortion is itself an attack on personal liberty and likewise runs completely contrary to the principle of non-aggression.

 

Since much material has been written debating when life begins, it would be foolish to spend ample time on the subject in this space. I will only say that those who argue that the developing fetus is not in any sense human have much scientific evidence against them. It is well documented that there is a beating heart after 18 days of fertilization and that the formation of brain waves occurs after a mere month and a half (keep in mind also that most abortions occur well after these developments). A recent column in the Telegraph documents the uneasiness of many pro-abortion Britons who are aware of the personhood of unborn children:

 

"New ultrasound pictures of a foetus show it toddling at 12 weeks, yawning at 15 and smiling at 18. What is the public reaction? Are we awestruck at this manifestation of the quickening within the womb that every mother feels?

 

"Do we recognise ourselves, our children and our children's children in what is visibly a tiny human being? No, people are more likely to reflect uneasily on the fact that tens of thousands of foetuses just like this are legally aborted before they are born. After more than a generation of abortion on demand, Britain has an ageing population and a queasy conscience."

 

Far from being just a simple "blob of flesh" or lifeless attachment inside a mother, more and more abortion supporters are beginning to come to terms with the inherent personhood of the developing fetus. Trying to set a precise time for the beginning of life neglects much of the scientific evidence that points to all the necessary ingredients being present in the very beginning of pregnancy. The commonly accepted notion of determining the status of life, or potential of life based upon how closely a fetus resembles a fully developed human (or using the most extreme argument of abortionists, that is, that life truly begins once the baby has totally exited the mother’s body during birth) is irresponsible. Far from being just a blob of flesh, or simple life form that is analogous to bacteria or growing fruit, a more responsible philosophical and moral position is to view that which is inside the womb for what it is: a developing human being.

 

Considering that, State sanctioning of abortion is nothing more than a trade-off of rights. Remember, in the opening of this essay, abortion was presented as a path to liberation and personal responsibility for the mother. Neither the State, nor any other human being (especially men) has a right to tell the mother what to do with her own body. Sounds good, doesn’t it? Not quite.

 

Such a position conveniently ignores the fact that within the mother is an entity that is completely distinct from her (The argument that abortion is legitimate since the child is dependant upon the mother for survival need not be limited to the womb, it can easily be extended towards born infants and even the disabled and elderly). Thus, there is a tradeoff of freedoms and rights. The mother gains special privileges and rights while at the same time the child loses them. One party gains at the expense of the other. This arrangement is no different from various other left-wing and statist inventions that harm some for the benefit of others.

 

It does one well to wonder how exactly this arrangement is libertarian and pro-freedom. Granting the state-approved right for mothers to terminate a pregnancy also ignores the rights and interests of other parties involved in the matter. First, it regulates the man's decision in the matter next to nothing (even though admittedly many of the men who impregnate these women are nothing more than "sperm donors" if you will, but that is not always the case). Secondly, it totally invalidates the life of the growing child amongst more and more evidence that what is in the womb is indeed a life. But since Junior was conceived at a bad time, he has no rights. Not exactly a very libertarian concept.

 

What about personal liberty, responsibility, and freedom? Again, it has been shown that those who defend abortion on grounds of freedom and personal liberty only tell half of the story. They have no problem with denying the right to life, liberty, and freedom to the unborn child (based not on biological science, philosophy, or moral reasoning mind you, but usually political or sociological arguments).

 

Secondly, the abortion debate could use more common sense on the issue of responsibility. According to a 1998 study in Family Planning Perspectives, 93% of abortions are obtained not for medical reasons, but social reasons (such as not feeling ready to have a child, not having adequate finances, etc). Concerns for the mother’s health accounted for only 3% of abortions (and plenty of modern physicians say that medicine and health care is technologically advanced to the point where this really is no longer a concern). Another 3% claimed that they were concerned for the health of the child (But yes, disabled children or children found to have defects have a right to be born also). And the percentage of abortions that occur because of rape or incest (the supposed trump card in the pro-abortion debate)? Just 1%.

 

It’s about time that defenders of freedom and personal responsibility put more pressure on promiscuous or sexually irresponsible people to take proper measures to avoid a pregnancy. It is morally and intellectually unfair to make unwanted children bear the burden for the irresponsible actions of others. While libertarians would rightly say that the State has no business trying to correct the poor attitudes and behaviors of others, it also makes little sense for the State to sanction aggressive and anti-life laws which punish innocents for the mistakes of their parents. That is not libertarian; it is selective freedom which pushes aggression on defenseless unborn children.

 

This leads us to one final consideration in this essay; that abortion violates the principle of nonaggression. The mother (or parents), usually as a result of her (or their) own irresponsibility, makes a decision to end a life unilaterally. The child obviously has no say in the matter. The pro-abortion parents and the State make the decision for child, and prematurely end his or her life. Again, not a very libertarian concept.

 

Abortion supporters object. The government is telling a woman what to do with her body! I'm encouraged when left-leaning thinkers start talking like libertarians, but discouraged to see that it stops at giving mothers the "right of privacy" to get abortions. Back in his quasi pro-life days, Al Gore once said "abortion is arguably the taking of a human life." If those who argue that it is the taking of a human life are correct, then I think even the staunchest libertarian can agree that the state should not be in the business of sanctioning aggression and destructive anti-life policies. Unfortunately, the State seems mainly concerned with economic stagnation and the destruction of life and property through war, abortion, anti-capitalistic measures, etc. Abortion is another piece of that puzzle.

 

It must also be recognized that the process in which abortion became the law of the land was nothing short of statist aggression. The State, through the judicially abominable decision of Roe v. Wade, federalized the matter through convoluted constitutional reasoning. This was a pristine example of political and judicial aggression that denied the rights of individual states to decide the matter by federalizing it. All honest libertarians should see this as an assault on states’ rights regardless of their position on the moral, legal, or philosophical merits of the actual abortion itself.

 

Notice in this libertarian attack on abortion I have not sought to endorse all pro-life legislation that has been considered over the years. That is because some of the legislation has approached the matter in a big-government or statist approach and actually negates itself because of it. Yet all libertarians should agree that Roe v. Wade is a blow to libertarian philosophy, and the issue should be returned to the states. In the meantime, individual states, and personal consciences would do well to consider the real nature of abortion: an aggressive, irresponsible act which denies personal freedom, liberty and justice to a weaker and inconvenient class of people.

 

As a libertarian, I defend the pro-life cause not only on moral and spiritual grounds, but also philosophically on the nonaggression principle and upon the principles of freedom and personal liberty. As has been shown, a government that sanctions abortion sanctions aggression, and gives rights and privileges to some (mothers) while taking away rights and harming others (the unwanted children). This tradeoff of rights and State-sponsored aggression is not libertarian, as most "mainstream" libertarians would assume. It is the standard statist model of how society and government should function which is ultimately unfair, immoral and destructive.

 

Such a concept has much more in common with the philosophy of the Left than it does with the philosophy of freedom. And there’s nothing libertarian about that.

 

July 1, 2004

[--->]

....

[--->]

....

[--->]

"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.

 

I agree. The government has no place sticking it's nose in a womans buisiness and legislating what she can and can't do with her body.

[Dawood]

"DO NOT KILL YOUR CHILDREN FEARING POVERTY FOR YOURSELVES"

 

 

 

there's a lot to be discussed here when it comes to this situation or that one.

Rape, or the mother could die if she delivers, etc etc.

But, lets not forget the golden rule,

 

KILLING BABIES IS WRONG !

 

if we can't all agree to that then we are in tough shape. I've seen some real weird defenses for abortion in this thread, someone even said

"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"

 

that's weird because newborn babies can't live without help from people, they must be fit to die too. i swear, people are so irresponsible and selfish.

[The Man with the Answers]

^^ but its ok to kill the women who bear them out of wedlock or in forced marriages?

[Smart]

Still today in 2006, adulteresses get stoned... and that's not drug talk.

[--->]

^^ but its ok to kill the women who bear them out of wedlock or in forced marriages?

 

 

I wonder what's the standard practice for that. Do they wait for the bitch to have the baby first before they stone her? Then who takes care of the baby? Do they have Muslum orphanages? If so that must churn out alot of angry al-quada type motherfuckers.:yuck:

[Smart]

Women could make sperm

[Posted: Tue 11/07/2006]

 

 

A new scientific breakthrough may lead to women in future being able to produce sperm.

Scientists in England have turned stem cells from am embryo into sperm which are capable of producing offspring.

The breakthrough is likely to lead to new advances in treating male infertility and even the possibility that women could manufacture sperm.

[fermentor666]

"I got something to say, I killed your baby today, and it doesn't matter that much to me, as long as it's dead."

 

 

 

Everyone who is so adament against abortion should be donating at least $50 dollars out of each paycheck to charities for the poor and they should be volunteering for shelters and vaccination buses.

[angelofdeath]

i do. i pay over 50% of my income in taxes. courtesy of the oversized federal welfare state. since when is it anyone's responsibility to take care of anyone else?

[--->]

50% huh? Sounds like you have a personal problem there buddy. I don't know anybody that gets any where near 50% of their pay taken out in taxes.:rolleyes:

[--->]

It is true about how the same exact people that are completely anti-abortion are the same douchebags that are against wellfare. It's usually the priviledged fucks (or middle class) that have no idea what it's like to be poor like most people and just assume that everyone has the means to raise kids. Because if they fucked up and got pregnant it's not that big of a deal to just start a familly being as they have the money and stability for it. And they for some reason assume that everyone elses life is like theirs. But god forbid that they have to pay taxes for wellfare to help the poor people (and/or junkies, crazy people, and other assorted mental invalids) feed and cloth these same kids that they insist must be born cause then all of a sudden they want to rail against "government intrusions". All the while rallying for "government intrusions" into a womans right to not have a baby. Go figure.:rolleyes:

 

 

 

.

[ASER1NE]

thats terrible no matter what your stance

 

This is what im saying...

[Krakatau]

50% huh? Sounds like you have a personal problem there buddy. I don't know anybody that gets any where near 50% of their pay taken out in taxes.:rolleyes:

Self employment, sharp guy. When you are paying your own employment taxes you gain new perspective on taxes as a whole.

 

Though I agree with you on abortion. Every person who thinks that all babies should be brought to term should have at least three adopted children in the family. Not really basing that number on anything concrete... but whatever. Abortion makes life better for everyone else. Period. That is what I base my opinions regarding the subject on. People die all the time, it is perfectly natural. This fear of death is really what drives it all. Fear of the unknown, empathy for this hypothetical baby/person that will go straight into that unknown little area called death.

 

Forgot to mention that it is not quite 50%, this is my first year of self employment. I think it is closer to 40%. Could be regional.

[Dawood]

^^ but its ok to kill the women who bear them out of wedlock or in forced marriages?

 

I don't know about forced marriges, forced marriages aren't a practice in Islam.

 

As for stoning the adultress, yes, and the adulterer, too.

Not just the woman, but the man gets it too.

 

According to Islamic law, though, there has to be 4 witnesses in order for a person to be convicted of adultery. Also, stoning is only for the one who is married, not for the one who was never married, for the person never married, the punishment is 100 lashes.

 

Think about it, what type of circumstances does a person have to be in to have 4 people watching him have sex? It doesn't seem like an ordinary everyday occourance.

 

And as for stoning adulterers turning out abunch of Al Qaida types, well, stoning is rare in muslim countries, especially when people were more religious.

 

Let's flip the coin now and take a look at our society and ask how many weirdos and psychos did promiscuous one night stands and un-married relationships turn out.

Marriage is an important structure in any family unit and without marriage and guidance,

most relationships fall apart and tear the family apart with it. And this scenario is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more common in American society than any adulter being stoned in EVERY muslim country.

 

So, my point is, yes . If a few adulterers and adultresses gotta die to preserve the behavior of the society, then I'm all for it.

[Dawood]

Self employment, sharp guy. When you are paying your own employment taxes you gain new perspective on taxes as a whole.

 

Though I agree with you on abortion. Every person who thinks that all babies should be brought to term should have at least three adopted children in the family. Not really basing that number on anything concrete... but whatever. Abortion makes life better for everyone else. Period. That is what I base my opinions regarding the subject on. People die all the time, it is perfectly natural. This fear of death is really what drives it all. Fear of the unknown, empathy for this hypothetical baby/person that will go straight into that unknown little area called death.

 

Forgot to mention that it is not quite 50%, this is my first year of self employment. I think it is closer to 40%. Could be regional.

 

So, Krak, youre saying that we have the right to kill eachothers kids because we shouldn't fear death? So, If I walked up to the kid buying the candy at the 7-11 and beat him until he died , I should just tell his people "don't be afraid of death" and that will make it all ok?

[Smart]

I don't know about forced marriges, forced marriages aren't a practice in Islam.

 

As for stoning the adultress, yes, and the adulterer, too.

Not just the woman, but the man gets it too.

 

According to Islamic law, though, there has to be 4 witnesses in order for a person to be convicted of adultery. Also, stoning is only for the one who is married, not for the one who was never married, for the person never married, the punishment is 100 lashes.

 

Think about it, what type of circumstances does a person have to be in to have 4 people watching him have sex? It doesn't seem like an ordinary everyday occourance.

 

And as for stoning adulterers turning out abunch of Al Qaida types, well, stoning is rare in muslim countries, especially when people were more religious.

 

Let's flip the coin now and take a look at ...

Another source of input here... in an Associated Press report I found this:

 

 

A former military ruler, Zia ul-Haq, introduced the Hudood Ordinance in 1979 in a move to Islamize the legal system. Under the ordinance, women can be sentenced to death by stoning if found guilty of having sex outside of marriage. Drinking is punishable by 80 lashes, and theft is punishable with the amputation of the right hand.

 

 

Human rights groups have been demanding for years that the law be repealed, saying it discriminates against women and is open to abuse.

 

 

The law makes prosecution in rape cases virtually impossible because rape victims must produce four male Muslim witnesses in court to prove the charge.

 

 

or, I found this, kind long so I'm gonna post it, then read it, hope it's releant:

 

 

 

 

ISLAMABAD: Ulema and Mashaikh convention has announced in unequivocal terms that Hudood laws will be protected at every cost as all Hudoods including zana, qazaf and liquor are proved categorically from Quran and Sunnah.

 

This was said in joint declaration released on the conclusion of Ulema convention held here Thursday in Ahl-e-Hadith mosque in G/6-1. Ulema from across the country attended the convention.

 

The declaration said punishments of flogging the unmarried couple with 100 stripes, stoning to death for married couple in adultery case, 80 lashes for slanderer, 80 lashes for liquor user, amputation of thief’s hand, amputation of left or right hand of robber according to nature of robbery, public hanging and jail terms are proved in unequivocal terms from the Holy Quran and Sunnah. These punishments are incorporated as such in the Hudood laws as are prescribed in Quran and Sunnah.

 

The Hudood punishments are aimed at providing justice to the oppressed and eliminating the oppressor and tyranny and protecting the honor and dignity of women folk. The westernized NGOs and so called intellectuals are involved in issuing derogatory statements against the Hudood laws. Government is encouraging them, declaration alleged.

 

Certain media cells are backing and patronizing them. The present Council of Islamic Ideology is being used to promote this anti Islam cause. Some imprudent people are committing blasphemous act by terming Islamic punishment brutal. While announcing to resist Islamic law on the evidence of four witnesses these elements have said they will not allow any law to remain in force under which the accused can not be brought to trial court. " We warn all these blasphemers that they should hold their tongues and keep their pens under check, otherwise they will have to face eventuality in the world for their wrong doings besides suffering humiliation and degradation on the day of judgment.

 

Ulema urged the government to abide by Islamic norms and make such people bound to adhere to the Islamic way of life rather than encouraging them. " We demanded of the two daily newspapers through correspondence and telephone that they should publish regret and repentance on behalf of blasphemers. But regrettably they have not paid heed to our demand. Instead they changed the statement secretly to some extent on June, 28, 2006 terming it their regret. " We demand of these dailies to publish regret prominently on the blasphemous act otherwise we will be constrained to bring them to court for trial.

 

Declaration added that as per convention the incumbent Council of Islamic Ideology is controversial and it be dissolved. A new council representing Ulema from all school of thoughts be framed. Chief Justice of Federal Shariat court is a controversial person. He sees Islam and Islamic laws from the eye of West. He should be replaced by some one who is impartial and sees Islam from the eyes of Muslim.

 

Declaration accused that the rulers are playing the role of US stooge in both the wars. They have become allies of US in military strikes against Pakistan rather than defending the borders.

 

By introducing English from the primary class it has been given message to the Britons that " we are your slaves. In derogation of Islamic teachings, the subject of Islamiyat has been deleted from the syllabus of class one and two.

 

General Musharraf has landed the country in series of miseries and tribulations. He wants to stay in power through massacre and blood shed. We demand that general Musharraf should forthwith resign from both the offices and an interim government be set up under the chairman senate.

 

President Musharraf had promised to Ittehad-e-Tanzeemat-e- Madaris that facilities of visas would be provided to foreign students for studying in the seminaries in Pakistan but as per new visa policy such facility for foreign students has been withdrawn.

 

Ulema convention demands of government to change the visa policy and issue visas to foreign students for attaining religious education in Pakistan. The certificates issued by all the five Tanzeemat be recognized as degrees equal to BA, MA and the Tanzeemat be accorded status of education board.

 

Earlier in their addresses Members of the National Assembly, Senators and Ulemas from different schools of thought challenged the government to prove any anomaly in the Hudood Ordinance, according to which it should be ever annulled.

 

They said Islam itself was the biggest upholder of rights and dignity of women, and accused the government of making the decision working on foreign instigation.

 

Addressing the convention, MNA Maulana Rehmat ullah Khalil strongly, resisted any kind of amendment whatsoever in the Hudood Ordinance. He also berated the government for misrepresenting the rights of women since they were more powerfully ordained by Islam itself.

 

He said that government should hold a dialogue with opposition on the matter, and it would gladly clarify all the myths and misunderstood concepts about Hudood.

 

Maulana Ilyas Chinioti also berated the government endeavors for fomenting open licentious behavior, and said that stay order against Qadianees exposing them and promulgation of Qadianee Ordinance was also due to collective and selfless struggle of Ulema. The Qadianees have recently reverted to the technique of buying real estate in bulk and causing artificial rise in land prices vowing to resist their latest plot.

 

Maulana Ghulam Rasool Rashidi, president of the Ittehad Ulema Pakistan also criticized the government of trying to challenge limits ordained by God Almighty, on American behest.

 

He also condemned the Islamic Ideological Council for supporting the Government in its shameful endeavors, and stressed on establishment of a Council, which works in accordance with truest of Islamic principals and precepts.

 

Maulana Ahmad Ali Kasuri, president Ulema Ahle Sunnat, alleged that forces alienated to the concept of Islam were trying to encourage licentious and immoral behavior. He also berated the NGOs for their anti-Islamic endeavors, and condemned media elements for Public discussion on taboo subjects.

 

Karachi MNA, Maulana Gul Rahman pledged to keep the spirit of seminaries alive, since it were mostly persons from these seminaries who had laid their precious lives for the independence of the Country, and expressed his total resistance to any endeavors of interference in Hudood Allah (limits set by God Almighty).

 

Maulana Mufti Muhammad Zahid Faisalabadi said that some smaller courts did give their verdict based on Hudood laws, and these have been exploited by some forces, in misrepresentation of actual spirit of Hudood laws.

 

He confessed that Ulema and religious elements failed to keep a vigil on such petty verdicts, at the opportune times but failed masses. He also said that western males have been trying to champion "rights of English womenfolk" for the past half centuries, despite the fact that Western females have been allotted much severe punishments than males.

 

Among other notable Ulema who strongly condemned and vowed to resist any amendment and dissolution of Hudood laws, Syed Maulana Nafees Shah, lauded the full support of media and press for their cause, while all others which included, Allama Abdul Jaleel Naqvi of Tehrik -e-Nafaz Fiqah Jafaria Pir Shafiq Jahangiri, Maulana Abdul Rauf Farooqi, Maulana Ismail Shujah Abadi, Maulana Saeed-ur-Rahman Ahmad and MNA Syed Naseeb Ali Shah strongly condemned the anti-Hudood bill tabled by PPPP and PML(Q) , and labeling it as un-constitutional and unislamic move vowed to resist any such move.

[fermentor666]

Sigh. Which would you rather have, an aborted fetus or a crackbaby? An aborted fetus or an inbreed child born of sexual abuse on a minor? An aborted fetus or three kids born to a prostitute living below the poverty line?

 

Do these people deserve to be punished for being weak, mistreated, and neglected? If yes, then can you possibly see how you would be a hypocrite?

 

What if one of those three kids grows up to be the person that murders one of your close friends or relatives? Sure, he could grow up to be president, but think realistically of the chances of a crackbaby growing up in the projects or a trailer turning into the next pope. Really, you might think I'm being cold-hearted but think of the horrible strain on the mother, the kid, and society. If someone is so against welfare and healthcare provided by the government, then wouldn't you benefit from their being less single mothers with unwanted babies? I'm glad they're taking 50% out of your income, angelofdeath, cause you're a fuckin' asshole. I hope it all goes to a lazy, drug addict slob who's cheating the system because the other 96% of people on welfare who NEED and DESERVE it are too good for your money.

[Smart]

If yes' date=' then can you possibly see how you would be a hypocrite?[/quote']

 

 

He's right though...

[angelofdeath]

"50% huh? Sounds like you have a personal problem there buddy. I don't know anybody that gets any where near 50% of their pay taken out in taxes"

 

your right. some of the people with "earned income tax credit" actually have the government owning them money. but if you actually were smart enough to add in, state and local taxes, all the various sales, excise and bullshit tax and most importantly the silent tax that is INFLATION, you are paying well over half your income in taxes. its close to 60% for the average american. but then again, im just a uncaring, extremist, nazi, christian.

[angelofdeath]

"If someone is so against welfare and healthcare provided by the government, then wouldn't you benefit from their being less single mothers with unwanted babies? I'm glad they're taking 50% out of your income, angelofdeath, cause you're a fuckin' asshole. I hope it all goes to a lazy, drug addict slob who's cheating the system because the other 96% of people on welfare who NEED and DESERVE it are too good for your money."

 

haha, and i hope your 50% goes to fund aggressive foreign wars.

seriously though, your just a naive, government sucking socialist. you see the socialist left and the neoconservative right are very hypocritical. the left feels the need to take the moral high ground on most issues. any dissent, and you are a politically incorrect, uncaring, facist. they preach about the moral superiority, but feel the need to kill babies for the benefit of society. the neo con right on the otherhand is just as bad. instead of killing babies, they like to be 'pro life' and support non defensive imperialist foreign wars.

 

if you only knew what the welfare state does. you think the 'stealing' of the 2000 and 04 elections was something? what about the welfare state. it has elected more corrupt politicians who dont care about anything but themselves than anything else in history. the welfare state, i hope you know, doesnt really help. it has created a government dependent people who will continue to vote themselves into thier own demise. take for instance hurricane katrina. look at your great federal government at work. this is socialist planning at its best. throwing lots of money at something, and not hardly fixing a damn thing. the welfare state is the same way. it hasnt eliminated poverty. the povery level is the exact same today as it was when LBJ started his great society scheme.

 

any dissent on the issues of government subsidies and handouts brands you a "fucking asshole." this of course shows you have no serious argument other than from the government indoctrinated schooling you recieved. sorry dude, but the plan isnt working. throwing more wet wood onto a barely smoldering fire isnt fixing anything. the only thing is doing is trying to keep people like you in the moral high ground.

 

the welfare/warfare state is coercive and immoral. americans are some of the most generous in the whole world. the only progress made in helping the poor is among private organizations. our foreign aid handouts do nothing but give money to corrupt foreign dictators and it never gets to the poor. i know your a devout socialist, but taking property from one person to give to another at the gunpoint of a government is about as immoral as you can get. as james madison, davy crockett and other great leaders of our past have commented... the people of the states have the liberty to allocate as much money as they want to who ever they want, but they have no authority to allocate one public dollar to anything that goes against the constitution.

 

so please continue to follow the leftist party line. talk about subduing executive power, (when FDR put more power in the executive than any other) and being morally superior.

i have a solution... lets just nationalize everything, then we wont have to worry about 'class warfare' or someone making more money than yourself, and the poor will REALLY be taken care of then. russia was so great.

[angelofdeath]

"It is true about how the same exact people that are completely anti-abortion are the same douchebags that are against wellfare. It's usually the priviledged fucks (or middle class) that have no idea what it's like to be poor like most people and just assume that everyone has the means to raise kids. Because if they fucked up and got pregnant it's not that big of a deal to just start a familly being as they have the money and stability for it. And they for some reason assume that everyone elses life is like theirs. But god forbid that they have to pay taxes for wellfare to help the poor people (and/or junkies, crazy people, and other assorted mental invalids) feed and cloth these same kids that they insist must be born cause then all of a sudden they want to rail against "government intrusions". All the while rallying for "government intrusions" into a womans right to not have a baby. Go figure."

 

i believe, as the declaration of independence points out, that humans, all have natural rights and that the only true legitimate function of government is to secure those rights. these rights are from the lockean principles of life, liberty and property. i believe in decentralized laws to protect life, which include anti abortion laws. i also believe in limited government. protection of life is a legitimate function of the State. i see no government 'intrusion' in telling a woman she cant kill her child.

 

you see the problem with folks like you, is that you simply cant understand decentralized government and ordered liberty. you feel that the central state is the only legitimate way of helping the poor, as well as EVERY OTHER task in our live, except bedroom behavior and passing laws interferring with free speech. however, the truth is that getting into our private lives is what you get when you centralize power and give more power to the government than it is supposed to have. that same powerful central state that can give you everything you want, WILL TAKE EVERYTHING YOU HAVE. i dont think i really need to add, but history is in my corner on this debate.

[Krakatau]

So' date=' Krak, youre saying that we have the right to kill eachothers kids because we shouldn't fear death? So, If I walked up to the kid buying the candy at the 7-11 and beat him until he died , I should just tell his people "don't be afraid of death" and that will make it all ok?[/quote']

Yeah, because that is obviously a logical extention to what I said.

No, I'm saying that on account of the fact that it really isn't a kid yet, mothers should be able to make the descision as to whether or not a pregnancy should be terminated.

 

The only thing that I could really bring to the table in the discussion past that is that I think fathers get completely fucked over in the process. They should have more say in determining the future of the hypothetical child, because they are legally bound to it for the next 18 years. Of couse the issue of it being in some woman's belly complicates things....

 

I love those pictures that started the page. Great for their intended purpose, showing that the developing human fetus (gasp) actually looks like a human.

But just a little while ago that thing looked like a little salamander with a pig nose.

[--->]

 

i believe, as the declaration of independence points out, that humans, all have natural rights and that the only true legitimate function of government is to secure those rights. these rights are from the lockean principles of life, liberty and property. i believe in decentralized laws to protect life, which include anti abortion laws. i also believe in limited government. protection of life is a legitimate function of the State. i see no government 'intrusion' in telling a woman she cant kill her child.

 

you see the problem with folks like you, is that you simply cant understand decentralized government and ordered liberty. you feel that the central state is the only legitimate way of helping the poor, as well as EVERY OTHER task in our live, except bedroom behavior and passing laws interferring with free speech. however, the truth is that getting into our private lives is what you get when you centralize power and give more power to the government than it is supposed to have. that same powerful central state that can give you everything you want, WILL TAKE EVERYTHING YOU HAVE. i dont think i really need to add, but history is in my corner on this debate.

 

Actually, the problem with people like YOU is that you honestly beleive this horse shit. Every "republican" I've ever talked to spouts the same exact line as you, all this...

"that humans, all have natural rights and that the only true legitimate function of government is to secure those rights. these rights are from the lockean principles of life, liberty and property. i believe in decentralized laws to protect life, which include anti abortion laws. i also believe in limited government. protection of life is a legitimate function of the State."

... But then you motherfuckers turn around and vote for the exact opposite of what you supposedly stand for! You turn around and endorse motherfucking Republicans whose whole agenda is eliminating the very liberties, freedoms, and right to property that you supposedly value! It takes alot of restraint not to grab a motherfucker by the shirt and smack the shit out of him when I hear them spout this nonsense while trying to explain why they voted for a motherfucker like Bush... or why they oppose a womans right to abortion. A fetus is not even a child yet, it's still the physical property of the woman who's carrying it. If you REALY were about "life liberty and property" you would be pro choice, and anti government intrusions into peoples personal buisiness. I don't realy know what your politics are but you're sounding alot like every republican I've ever talked to so I'm just assuming that you are. But either way you need to re-evaluate what you think your priority's and beleifs are.

[ERIZENO]

Its appalling to me when deeply conservative people have their own young children out on the streets with signs showing images like these. No children should be subjected to these images, ever !!!

 

If the deeply conservative and religious people are just sitting back waiting for "The Rapture" anyway .... what are they honestly doing to the world their grandchildren may live in IF they are wrong ??? Oh Wait ... they cant be, God told someone who wrote it down in a book. Cant question the word of God even when its written by the hand of man !!!

 

This is a quality subject to bring up if you want to never end up reaching a common ground with your fellow humans.

 

I have deeply mixed feelings on this issue, it is abused by stupid people (who it should be off limits to) but I would never want a law written into the books to stop it.

 

We would wind up with a least a few girls bleeding out in dark alleys ... Laws don't stop people who want to do something !!!