There's so much ignorance about abortion, if only people knew more. Its a wonder how so many people can form opinions on abortion when they don't know what it is. I know its a hot-button issue but people on both sides need to stop beings governed by their emotions and start deciding based on the facts. If everyone knew the facts on abortion the controversy would disappear. Nearly all of the questions about abortion have already been answered. Educate yourself, go to abort73(dot)com
None of you must of heard of something called P-O-V-E-R-T-Y.Its not being selfish its not perpeuating a cycle of despair and suffering.Why dont you "pro-Lifers"as you call yourselves go and adopt 3 sick babies apiece.Then lets see in 2 yrs if you want a right to life!!
how could you say that? Have you ever been around a "sick" baby, my brother was a sick baby and i'd take him and a thousand more over, just because he doesn't live to your standards doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to live
when you have a women addicted to drugs and the kid is gonna be born fucked...why force that kid to suffer?AND besides i didnt hear ANYONE objectin when the govt trimmed the welfare rolls!!Who's gonna take care of the kid??
How can anyone kill a baby?? i mean honestly al your doing is taking their one chance and destroying it cause your greedy and dont say its anything more you cant hanle the baby so you kill it you greedily kill someone you are a murderer and no they dont deserve choices
one must decide between the good of one or the good of the many. if you think about it, saving the child would be greedy in the case that an entire population is starving and dying because of overpopulation(via china)one more mouth to feed, another person to take care of, less for everyone else to eat and sustain themselves on. with this concept, sparing the newborn baby would mean killing hundreds of others by starvation and bringing the child into the very same life to reapeat the process.
If a newborn can be killed because it's one more mouth, so can YOU. You want a society where anyone can kill anyone else based on some survival edict? Welcome to chaos.
chaos? I think not, it's in limiting how many children one may be permitted, it's in making sure that number doesn't exceed what it has to be for a country to survive that actually signifies 'order'
heartless actions? in a sense, but how about thinking about the big picture instead of one child's life. we're talking about population regulation here, not killing children or people all willy nilly.
YOU DUMB FUCK, listen for once, I was specifically Targeting CHINA'S population.
if you would pay attention to anything but your own arse you might fucking see that, you two bit fucking close minded imbecile. yeah, maybe killing off a couple of fucking fetuses might not be the best route in AMERICA but you know, in china were people are starving and dying from poor conditions every day, population regulation is a neccessity.
No maybe you should listen, do you forget what we have just been discussing? It wasn't fetuses it was your idea that killing BORN ppl....the disabled, the old was OKAY. Don't try to deflect that you're a sick phuck that thinks he/she is GOD.
first off, this whole thing got started when chrisman asked me my own beliefs on this, do you understand that? my own FUCKING BELIEFS. retard. second I do NOT believe that's how life should be, I merely stated that under the conditions of a pseudo-tyrannical state of government where women have no say in matters of their body, that it should be the case. if women lose the right to have that choice then soon all of EVERYONE'S right will be gone.
(continued) I was annotating that if that were the case, then that's what should happen, I was in no way condoning it, I even specifically stated in earlier posts that I don't. and you say I try and act like a god? since fucking when? I stated my opinion and I fought along side of it, YOU are doing the exact same fucking thing. we all have opinions and mine just happens to differ from yours, deal with it and stop being such a moronic fucking child.
Life begins at conception. If it were not alive it would not grow, and if it were not human (having human genetic information) than it would not be able to grow into a recognizable human being. Life begins at conception.
there is a difference between life and being alive. many things are alive that we so willingly destroy, animals, insects, plants and trees. they're all alive yet we chop them down, step on them and abuse them. so why should a human life be any different? you'll most likely say something pro-human and disregard what I just said but, we are all equal, we all have rights to life. in america we also have the right to choose. those not happy with their choice need to deal with it and move on.
So what is your solution, ShinigamiLuca? If we all have rights to life, then how do you survive? Every time you eat meat, you participate in the killing of an animal. Even if you are a vegetarian, you participate in the killing of life every time you eat a vegetable.
we survive because not every woman in the world is some brain-dead harlot who gets knocked up and decides to have an abortion. I'm not saying I agree fully with abortions, I'm not saying I agree with the taking of a life but at some point you have to measure which is more important, one life or the life of thousands.
So what is preventing you from taking the lives of those who are handicapped? Why not do what Hitler did, and kill those who are retarded or otherwise disabled? You save them misery, you save society the headache of running big homes and specialized services for these people, and you save society from otherwise sustaining people who do not contribute to society. I don't agree with any of this. But would you? And if not, why not?
as cruel as it sounds and as hated as I'm sure it will make me yes I do agree with it. although there are some mentally handicapped people in society the majority of them are a burden. they aren't fit to be in modern society and often can't keep up with things for obvious lack of mental capacity/stability or have otherwise asserted themselves as nothing more than a leech on society. there are those who are efficient, my friend for example is good at sports but not much else.
Amazing that you would admit to this, ShinigamiLuca. So tell me this...who would decide who should live and who should die? Perhaps a group of doctors? The government? The police? The military? What standards would be used? How handicapped is "too handicapped" to be allowed to live? Which disabilities warrant a death sentence?
I would have to say a mixed group of well educated, high marked doctors, as well as a group of philosophers. the doctors would be likely to bring logic while the philosophers would bring morals and value of life in. they should debate on it and come to a conclusion on how deep of a mental retardation would warrant the "death sentence." personally I would wait until the person has gotten to adulthood, if he/she can act as a functioning member in society let them live, if they are a leech then no.
Well, all I can say is, this is the exact same mentality of people like Adolf Hitler (whose goal was racial purity) and others like Lenin and Stalin (whose goal was an efficient worker state unhampered by "undesirables" such as the handicapped and those who believe in God). I am sorry, but I believe that the right to life is "inalienable" (cannot be taken away) and is not contingent on factors such as being handicapped or retarded. I pray your way of thinking dies just as did the USSR.
this isn't the same, we're not talking about racial purification, or even in the USSRs case with a proletariat society. we're talking about whether a child should be born in a case where conditions of life are completely pot-shot down the gutter you say a child has the right to life yeah, it does. but do people have the right to bring a child into the world when they can't take care of it? when the parents are strung out on drugs and commit acts of crime and sleeze? wheres the childs right then?
Once the child is conceived, the debate is over. It is not an option to kill the child (born or unborn) simply because it cannot be taken care of. While we are at it, why not just run through the streets of our major cities, round up all the homeless and drug addicts, and have them killed. Why not? Is it right for us to have them continue such a pathetic existence?
I encourage you, ShinigamiLuca, to re-think your position. Please keep and open mind and do not merely conform to the dictates of secular society. It amazes me that our society okays abortion, encourages euthanasia, and is now moving towards killing newborns legally. You may not be worried, but I am. Once one life is unprotected, then we are all in danger. What is to prevent a doctor or a philosopher from deciding you should die? Beware of what you propose, it could come back at you.
I encourage you, friend, to be more open minded about this. I see your side as well as mine, I understand both. BUT I don't completely disregard one or the other. if you'll notice I've said that first off it should be the mother and father's choice. it shouldn't be government officials and it shouldn't be society. besides, is it really ethical to let another life be born into a life there they'd most likely dies young of some disease or starvation?
Open minded to killing the mentally handicapped? Open to aborting Down's Syndrome children simply because that have Down's? Sorry, but life is the central issue here. Even the Declaration of Independence recognizes that every person is endowed by their Creator with an inalienable right to life. Inalienable -- that is a right that cannot be taken away. It is not up to us to choose who should live and who should die. And no, it is not up to the parents. Life is precious and inalienable.
And besides, we never know what will come of a person who grows up in a difficult situation. What about a little baby born, let's say, in poverty. Let's say the father is an alcoholic and actually drinks himself to death. So that leaves the mother, and she is overwhelmed, so she goes insane, and the little boy actually sees her mother being dragged away to some sort of insane asylum. Should that boy never have been born? What do you think? I think that little boy deserves to have his life.
"What about a little baby born, let's say, in poverty. Let's say the father is an alcoholic and actually drinks himself to death. So that leaves the mother, and she is overwhelmed, so she goes insane,..."
In case you didn't guess, this scenario to which I was referring actually happened. The little boy's name? Charlie Chaplin!
You speak of offing the mentaloly disabled, who have an excuse for being a "leech"< what about the able bodied that refuse to work and live off our tax dollars?
they're lazy, they aren't completely useless to society. and like I said I'm not talking about the mentally retarded in general, just the ones who serve no real purpose to society. I know a couple of special cases who could actually go far in the world and be a great asset to society. but the people who live off welfare can actually work, they just choose not to.
If you never work, do drugs and live off others you ARE completely useless. and I know ppl just like this. They have no ambitions, no plans....only goal is to get stoned and mooch off others.
yeah and look how much we have to spend on taking care of the disabled, look at all the time is wasted on them, it's not like there's any real way to fix them, while with the lazy, you can fix them by enforcing work orders and making them work or suffer a penalty.
you're right and you're not, it should be the mother AND father's choice, that's all. anyone outside of it didn't conceive the child nor did they have any part in it. it would be like me sketching a picture and regretting it for whatever reason and wanting to throw it away. and you coming up to me and saying I can't because the picture has been sketched, it has a right to be seen and exist. it would be my picture not yours, therefore my choice.
anything is possible its america...>.> well it is true you are either pregnant or not but i do feel women should be given the right to choos but life is more important than ones one selfish needs etc. so ya
This has been flagged as spam show
TRUTH ALERT!
There's so much ignorance about abortion, if only people knew more. Its a wonder how so many people can form opinions on abortion when they don't know what it is. I know its a hot-button issue but people on both sides need to stop beings governed by their emotions and start deciding based on the facts. If everyone knew the facts on abortion the controversy would disappear. Nearly all of the questions about abortion have already been answered. Educate yourself, go to abort73(dot)com
HumanRights4Everyone 3 years ago
None of you must of heard of something called P-O-V-E-R-T-Y.Its not being selfish its not perpeuating a cycle of despair and suffering.Why dont you "pro-Lifers"as you call yourselves go and adopt 3 sick babies apiece.Then lets see in 2 yrs if you want a right to life!!
dogdoom 4 years ago 2
how could you say that? Have you ever been around a "sick" baby, my brother was a sick baby and i'd take him and a thousand more over, just because he doesn't live to your standards doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to live
lalamandelala121 3 years ago
when you have a women addicted to drugs and the kid is gonna be born fucked...why force that kid to suffer?AND besides i didnt hear ANYONE objectin when the govt trimmed the welfare rolls!!Who's gonna take care of the kid??
dogdoom 3 years ago
How can anyone kill a baby?? i mean honestly al your doing is taking their one chance and destroying it cause your greedy and dont say its anything more you cant hanle the baby so you kill it you greedily kill someone you are a murderer and no they dont deserve choices
somestrangeguynamedj 4 years ago
one must decide between the good of one or the good of the many. if you think about it, saving the child would be greedy in the case that an entire population is starving and dying because of overpopulation(via china)one more mouth to feed, another person to take care of, less for everyone else to eat and sustain themselves on. with this concept, sparing the newborn baby would mean killing hundreds of others by starvation and bringing the child into the very same life to reapeat the process.
ShinigamiLuca 3 years ago
It takes many "ones" to make "many".
It takes individuals to make a society.
If a newborn can be killed because it's one more mouth, so can YOU. You want a society where anyone can kill anyone else based on some survival edict? Welcome to chaos.
HeartofGoldHooker 3 years ago
chaos? I think not, it's in limiting how many children one may be permitted, it's in making sure that number doesn't exceed what it has to be for a country to survive that actually signifies 'order'
heartless actions? in a sense, but how about thinking about the big picture instead of one child's life. we're talking about population regulation here, not killing children or people all willy nilly.
ShinigamiLuca 3 years ago
A clue for you... YOU and nobody else decides how many children are "permitted". If I want 10 kids, I'll have them. Deal with it.
PurrfectlyCute 3 years ago
YOU DUMB FUCK, listen for once, I was specifically Targeting CHINA'S population.
if you would pay attention to anything but your own arse you might fucking see that, you two bit fucking close minded imbecile. yeah, maybe killing off a couple of fucking fetuses might not be the best route in AMERICA but you know, in china were people are starving and dying from poor conditions every day, population regulation is a neccessity.
ShinigamiLuca 3 years ago
No maybe you should listen, do you forget what we have just been discussing? It wasn't fetuses it was your idea that killing BORN ppl....the disabled, the old was OKAY. Don't try to deflect that you're a sick phuck that thinks he/she is GOD.
PurrfectlyCute 3 years ago
first off, this whole thing got started when chrisman asked me my own beliefs on this, do you understand that? my own FUCKING BELIEFS. retard. second I do NOT believe that's how life should be, I merely stated that under the conditions of a pseudo-tyrannical state of government where women have no say in matters of their body, that it should be the case. if women lose the right to have that choice then soon all of EVERYONE'S right will be gone.
ShinigamiLuca 3 years ago
(continued) I was annotating that if that were the case, then that's what should happen, I was in no way condoning it, I even specifically stated in earlier posts that I don't. and you say I try and act like a god? since fucking when? I stated my opinion and I fought along side of it, YOU are doing the exact same fucking thing. we all have opinions and mine just happens to differ from yours, deal with it and stop being such a moronic fucking child.
ShinigamiLuca 3 years ago
..... not but it's scientific fact life begins at conception
FartyFartyPoopyPants 4 years ago
you are an incredible piano player
goldbluntz 4 years ago 2
lol i wish i could say that song is mine its actually from an anime called Xtv i think the song is calld sademe i think ill have to look it up
alchemyrox 4 years ago
Just think, it shouuld not be a womans choice to kill a child
nesquick3415 4 years ago
right there is the issue of abortion we dont know if life begins at conception or outside the womb.
alchemyrox 4 years ago
Life begins at conception. If it were not alive it would not grow, and if it were not human (having human genetic information) than it would not be able to grow into a recognizable human being. Life begins at conception.
chrisman737 4 years ago
there is a difference between life and being alive. many things are alive that we so willingly destroy, animals, insects, plants and trees. they're all alive yet we chop them down, step on them and abuse them. so why should a human life be any different? you'll most likely say something pro-human and disregard what I just said but, we are all equal, we all have rights to life. in america we also have the right to choose. those not happy with their choice need to deal with it and move on.
ShinigamiLuca 3 years ago
So what is your solution, ShinigamiLuca? If we all have rights to life, then how do you survive? Every time you eat meat, you participate in the killing of an animal. Even if you are a vegetarian, you participate in the killing of life every time you eat a vegetable.
chrisman737 3 years ago
we survive because not every woman in the world is some brain-dead harlot who gets knocked up and decides to have an abortion. I'm not saying I agree fully with abortions, I'm not saying I agree with the taking of a life but at some point you have to measure which is more important, one life or the life of thousands.
ShinigamiLuca 3 years ago
So what is preventing you from taking the lives of those who are handicapped? Why not do what Hitler did, and kill those who are retarded or otherwise disabled? You save them misery, you save society the headache of running big homes and specialized services for these people, and you save society from otherwise sustaining people who do not contribute to society. I don't agree with any of this. But would you? And if not, why not?
chrisman737 3 years ago
as cruel as it sounds and as hated as I'm sure it will make me yes I do agree with it. although there are some mentally handicapped people in society the majority of them are a burden. they aren't fit to be in modern society and often can't keep up with things for obvious lack of mental capacity/stability or have otherwise asserted themselves as nothing more than a leech on society. there are those who are efficient, my friend for example is good at sports but not much else.
ShinigamiLuca 3 years ago
Amazing that you would admit to this, ShinigamiLuca. So tell me this...who would decide who should live and who should die? Perhaps a group of doctors? The government? The police? The military? What standards would be used? How handicapped is "too handicapped" to be allowed to live? Which disabilities warrant a death sentence?
chrisman737 3 years ago
I would have to say a mixed group of well educated, high marked doctors, as well as a group of philosophers. the doctors would be likely to bring logic while the philosophers would bring morals and value of life in. they should debate on it and come to a conclusion on how deep of a mental retardation would warrant the "death sentence." personally I would wait until the person has gotten to adulthood, if he/she can act as a functioning member in society let them live, if they are a leech then no.
ShinigamiLuca 3 years ago
Well, all I can say is, this is the exact same mentality of people like Adolf Hitler (whose goal was racial purity) and others like Lenin and Stalin (whose goal was an efficient worker state unhampered by "undesirables" such as the handicapped and those who believe in God). I am sorry, but I believe that the right to life is "inalienable" (cannot be taken away) and is not contingent on factors such as being handicapped or retarded. I pray your way of thinking dies just as did the USSR.
chrisman737 3 years ago
Exactly. This bitch is a heartless Hitler wannabe.
HeartofGoldHooker 3 years ago
this isn't the same, we're not talking about racial purification, or even in the USSRs case with a proletariat society. we're talking about whether a child should be born in a case where conditions of life are completely pot-shot down the gutter you say a child has the right to life yeah, it does. but do people have the right to bring a child into the world when they can't take care of it? when the parents are strung out on drugs and commit acts of crime and sleeze? wheres the childs right then?
ShinigamiLuca 3 years ago
Once the child is conceived, the debate is over. It is not an option to kill the child (born or unborn) simply because it cannot be taken care of. While we are at it, why not just run through the streets of our major cities, round up all the homeless and drug addicts, and have them killed. Why not? Is it right for us to have them continue such a pathetic existence?
chrisman737 3 years ago
I am pro-choice but you referred here to also killing BORN ppl with disabilities.
PurrfectlyCute 3 years ago
I encourage you, ShinigamiLuca, to re-think your position. Please keep and open mind and do not merely conform to the dictates of secular society. It amazes me that our society okays abortion, encourages euthanasia, and is now moving towards killing newborns legally. You may not be worried, but I am. Once one life is unprotected, then we are all in danger. What is to prevent a doctor or a philosopher from deciding you should die? Beware of what you propose, it could come back at you.
chrisman737 3 years ago
I encourage you, friend, to be more open minded about this. I see your side as well as mine, I understand both. BUT I don't completely disregard one or the other. if you'll notice I've said that first off it should be the mother and father's choice. it shouldn't be government officials and it shouldn't be society. besides, is it really ethical to let another life be born into a life there they'd most likely dies young of some disease or starvation?
ShinigamiLuca 3 years ago
Open minded to killing the mentally handicapped? Open to aborting Down's Syndrome children simply because that have Down's? Sorry, but life is the central issue here. Even the Declaration of Independence recognizes that every person is endowed by their Creator with an inalienable right to life. Inalienable -- that is a right that cannot be taken away. It is not up to us to choose who should live and who should die. And no, it is not up to the parents. Life is precious and inalienable.
chrisman737 3 years ago
And besides, we never know what will come of a person who grows up in a difficult situation. What about a little baby born, let's say, in poverty. Let's say the father is an alcoholic and actually drinks himself to death. So that leaves the mother, and she is overwhelmed, so she goes insane, and the little boy actually sees her mother being dragged away to some sort of insane asylum. Should that boy never have been born? What do you think? I think that little boy deserves to have his life.
chrisman737 3 years ago
"What about a little baby born, let's say, in poverty. Let's say the father is an alcoholic and actually drinks himself to death. So that leaves the mother, and she is overwhelmed, so she goes insane,..."
In case you didn't guess, this scenario to which I was referring actually happened. The little boy's name? Charlie Chaplin!
chrisman737 3 years ago
wow, so what happens to someone who was once a "productive' member of society that gets hit by a car and left with a handicap?
It's not anyone's right to decide if someone else can live. Who the hell do you think you are?
HeartofGoldHooker 3 years ago
You speak of offing the mentaloly disabled, who have an excuse for being a "leech"< what about the able bodied that refuse to work and live off our tax dollars?
PurrfectlyCute 3 years ago
they're lazy, they aren't completely useless to society. and like I said I'm not talking about the mentally retarded in general, just the ones who serve no real purpose to society. I know a couple of special cases who could actually go far in the world and be a great asset to society. but the people who live off welfare can actually work, they just choose not to.
ShinigamiLuca 3 years ago
If you never work, do drugs and live off others you ARE completely useless. and I know ppl just like this. They have no ambitions, no plans....only goal is to get stoned and mooch off others.
PurrfectlyCute 3 years ago
you're not useless though, you still have the ability to make something of yourself, even if you're unwilling to do so
ShinigamiLuca 3 years ago
If you're unwilling, you're useless.
THose that CAN work and refuse to are more of a drain on society than the disabled. Look at how much is spent on welfare for these leeches.
PurrfectlyCute 3 years ago
yeah and look how much we have to spend on taking care of the disabled, look at all the time is wasted on them, it's not like there's any real way to fix them, while with the lazy, you can fix them by enforcing work orders and making them work or suffer a penalty.
ShinigamiLuca 3 years ago
Well, except by the grace of God YOU could be disabled. My dad worked his entire life, then was left disabled by a heartattack.
That's life. Eventually we all become "useless" if we live long enough.
But I bet the old are up for the killing in your book, as well.
PurrfectlyCute 3 years ago
actually yes, the venerable ones at least. when they become too brittle and old to be of any civil value to the world then yes.
ShinigamiLuca 3 years ago
So when YOU get old or if YOU get disabled, you're okay with being exterminated?
Honestly, you really are a sick phuck. Nobody made you God to decide who may live.
PurrfectlyCute 3 years ago
Even one life has rights, over the majority. A majority doesn't have the right to make minorities non citizens.
HeartofGoldHooker 3 years ago
you're right and you're not, it should be the mother AND father's choice, that's all. anyone outside of it didn't conceive the child nor did they have any part in it. it would be like me sketching a picture and regretting it for whatever reason and wanting to throw it away. and you coming up to me and saying I can't because the picture has been sketched, it has a right to be seen and exist. it would be my picture not yours, therefore my choice.
ShinigamiLuca 3 years ago
I'm pro life
nesquick3415 4 years ago
so am i but i feel that the womens choice shouldnt be controlled. it so difficult
alchemyrox 4 years ago
i am pro choice but i am also pro life its kinda a mix haha
alchemyrox 4 years ago
Pro-life and pro-choice? Impossible. You are either pregnant, or not.
TheTubra 4 years ago
anything is possible its america...>.> well it is true you are either pregnant or not but i do feel women should be given the right to choos but life is more important than ones one selfish needs etc. so ya
alchemyrox 4 years ago
ar u for abortion
maffuccioforever 4 years ago