Od paying job working with my grandma who was CEO of the company and she taught children with mental problems and did soccer , so yes a women can do stuff with a kid, but it would be easier if they didn't have a kid also...idk how to explain it, at first I was taught women should have kids and women with kids were selfish....now that I'm older I'm thinking of waiting and getting a head in my carreer and having fun, then kids but I wanna have fun for a while
I don't see what the big uproar is, not everywomen wants a kid young. Or wants a kid in general. Women now adays want to live life longer and expierence and get more goals and reach more goals. You can't always do that with a kid on your arm. Not saying if you have kids you can't do all that cause I'm confident and proud of women who have kids and acheieved all there goals but its hard for them in the first place to all that. I'm 16 and barly got on Beyaz, my mother had me at 23 and she had a go
One billion will die due to lack. Millions live in unbearable conditions & struggle for everyday basics. And society is suppose to recognize the beauty and dignity of MOTHERHOOD. Kudos to those women who chose not to populate an already over-populated planet.. There is not enough to take care of the masses. Do a search on famines. The growing problem will not be solved by producing more people.
@WilliamsRachael Thanks for your post. For every child that is born, another child will die from hunger and want. It is a selfish act to have a child. Suffering is all around and getting more extensive as each day passes. If a child is what is wanted, adopt one of the millions, the throw away child that nobody wanted. Give those already born a chance at life. Planet earth cannot sustain any more population.
Society already pretend motherhood is a hell of a lot better than it actually is. How about we recognize the beauty and dignity of women as people rather than people factories?
@juliewashere88 Motherhood may have its drawbacks, but it is a great mode for women to show that they are a fundamental part of society. Motherhood in itself is truly beautiful and dignified, only some people disagree with this because it denies them some of their social opportunities. However if women REALLY don't want children, they don't need sex.
@snivithefox Um, breeding a "great" way for women to burden society. I'd rather be a part of society that's actually productive and useful, rather than contributing to overpopulation and being a leech.
If women REALLY don't want children, we can use birth control and/or get sterilization and/or have abortions and have all the sex we want because our lives belong to ourselves.
@snivithefox Lol, seriously? So women who don't want babies should just live an asexual life, without a romantic partner??? Because I don't know many men who would want to have a sexless relationship. Yeah, that's unlikely to happen, unless the woman is actually asexual. I will enjoy my body as I see fit, thank you very much. Perhaps I don't "need" sex, in the same way I don't need the cup of coffee I'm drinking right now, but HELL I want it. If that bothers you, might I suggest Saudi Arabia?
@Kittycatriona Hell, I'M asexual. I still think this prude @snivithefox is fucking crazy. I guess s/he doesn't have to worry about getting laid though, spending all of her days playing Minecraft and Total War. Good games to be sure, but they seem to be his/her entire life. Fuck that.
@juliewashere88 Fuck that indeed. People can go do whatever the hell they like with their own bodies, so long as they are not harming another being I could not give a fuck. But people who feel like they are entitled to control other peoples choices are sad bastards. I guess they don't have their own lives to attend to, they are too busy being obsessive about others. It's like some sort of weird voyeurism. Basically, they can't stand that many of us are having more fun :p
@Kittycatriona I could speculate the life, or lack thereof, of said person, but I figure there's no point. I figure their reason for bitching here is simple - misery loves company.
You're right, people who can't respect the sexual and reproductive choices of others are sad bastards. This @snivithefox is a pathetic misogynist.
@juliewashere88 I am sorry that I come across as someone who dislikes women for all that they are, but I am strongly against this. I believe that women in today's society are more likely to be pressured into an abortion than to actually decide to make the decision themselves, because men, media, and friends think that this is a better decision for them. Abortion also does not seem like a natural solution for overpopulation because it has more negative biology affects on women than positive ones.
But pressuring women TO have kids, and, more than that, degrading their means to prevent that is A-OK? No, you don't get to attack birthcontrol and then suddenly pretend to give a shit about women's choices.
Not only does Beyaz have fuck all to do with abortion, but the shit you've said about abortion is blatantly pulled right out of your ass. Women have abortions because they freely choose to do so, and abortion hurts no one.
@Kittycatriona If I really do come across as one who wishes to control others in all modes of their life, I am sorry. That is not my intention. I believe that women should have their own reproductive opportunities and should not have to necessarily adhere to society's norm. If they want to bring about their love into the world by having a child, why are they cut down for doing so or entirely denied one? It seems that media and society wish to deny the fact that motherhood is natural in life.
@snivithefox@snivithefox So why would you make a comment like "However if women REALLY don't want children, they don't need sex" if you belief women should have their "reproductive opportunities"? What about the choice NOT to reproduce? Society does NOT cut mothers down, in fact it elevates them to ridiculous demi-goddess status where the mother can do no wrong. And how does this ad "cut motherhood down" in any way. It's about choices, nothing more, nothing less.
" If they want to bring about their love into the world by having a child, why are they cut down for doing so or entirely denied one? It seems that media and society wish to deny the fact that motherhood is natural in life."
Bullshit. You made all of that up. Motherhood is foisted upon women as a social expectation and those that refuse are ostracized. Not only that, but motherhood is revered and privileged to an insane degree to the point of being detrimental to everyone else.
I don't understand why this is controversial. I mean it's not like that one condom ad where a guy looks at his screaming brat, looks at the condom, and realizes if he'd just wrapped it up...
This is simply showing the reality in a subtle but noticeable way, no real hate.
Everyone who is upset with this video apparently believes that contraception is wrong & women should spend their entire lives between pregnancies, with their only purpose on this earth being a vessel for more life. Which is bullshit.
Here's the thing, the stork is in the same store as the trip to Paris and the perfect man, it's something that many women will want, and many women will not. I'm sure there are many people who would turn down a trip to Paris, just as some don't want kids right now.
@SJulie221 ... defensive much?! I don't pity your choice not to have kids; I pity how much time you spend focusing on what other people might say about your choice. I admire your comment through "We are actively involved in humanitarian organizations & the community." ... I don't think anyone cares to know how much you spend on charity donations. I think its braggy, rude, and obtuse to disclose that. I am detecting a high need of your's to justify and/or prove yourself. Wow.
I'm sorry but people seem to care a hell of a lot about whether we childfree have kids or not.
We are called selfish and all sorts of things, and yet most of us are fine with other people's choices.
If we seem to feel the need to justify our choices, maybe it's cos of people not understanding, not respecting that we want different things out of life. If we seem defensive, it's cos so many of us have family/friends/colleagues/strangers asking us to explain our choice then judge us.
Love this commercial!! I'd friggin' DROP that Asian chick though. This commercial isn't about WHICH choices you'd make, it's about the fact that there ARE choices. Wish it was as simple as going to a store and choosing what you want...
Miscarriage is a natural act of nature in the body. Abortion is not. So to say miscarriage should be called manslaughter is absurd. There is no comparison in the 2. - On another note, if a woman chooses to not have a child, then so be it. Some women are meant or want to be mothers and some don't . We live in crazy times where choice is something to fight for. God bless!
My spouse of 35 yrs. & I are child-free by choice. We are actively involved in humanitarian organizations & the community. We are not self-centered takers who only think of our wants, our needs. We do not own a lavish home or drive luxury vehicles. 1/3 of our income is given to charities. Take no pity on our childless decision. We are not empty, void of happiness. Quite the opposite. Children may add to parent's lives, but parenting was not my choice.
Chosing to not to bring children in an already overpopulated world, one filled with hatred and endless discord, was a personal choice. This does not make me selfish, a taker, one who thinks only of myself. Millions go hungry, struggle daily for the basics of food, water and shelter. One in four American children face hunger. The solution is not additional populace. Thankful for Birth Control; reproductive rights and freedom to choose.
Guess I'm just another one of those shallow sluts that would take a trip to paris over a screaming, shitting, drooling infant any day. Pass the baguette.
@Snackbar47 No shit really? I thought I was dropped on to the planet as a 20 year old. Thank you for enlightening me. What's your point? Nowhere did I say that there's anything wrong with being a shitting, screaming, drooling infant, I just said I don't care to have one, thanks very much.
I'm sure @babyslothwrangler wasn't a "screaming, shitting, drooling infant" until after being born. He/she couldn't have been any of those things before he/she ever existed.
And nothing is "loved into life." Biology doesn't work that way.
@autumnsylver "By that logic, farmers should be legally allowed to kill everyone in society, because they grow the food that everyone else is dependent upon." Thank you!!! You just helped prove my point that your argument (re: a mother's life is more important simply b/c her unborn baby needs her to survive and so she has the right to kill him/her) is illogical and invalid.
There is a choice: women can choose to respect themselves and thereby encourage others to respect them by having higher standards and refusing to allow herself to be used for sex in the 1st place. There are 97% effective methods of avoiding pregnancy that require respect for a woman rather than BC, which encourages a woman's body to be used as nothing more than a sperm receptacle . It's not surprising chivalry is dead; women killed it.
I rather like this commercial, it actually presents the option to refuse to have children in favor of living your own life. The Pill isn't my birth control option of choice, I'm going to be sterilized, but the facts remain the same, there is a choice, women can delay or even entirely forgo reproduction in favor of other accomplishments.
The first thought that popped in my head after watching this: "Greed is good". When we hear Micheal Douglas speak it with such confidence we automatically think it is something evil and to be avoided, but when women would rather "pass" on being pregnant to follow other pursuits - that greed it actually praised! Unbelieveable.
FACT: Almost ALL oral contraceptives and ALL IUDs are abortifacients. A women on average will lose a pregnancy every 12-18 months while on the pill.
So a commercial offering an option for women to avoid pregnancy and therefore a potential abortion is bad too? I see. So either you are a breeder or a murderer by your reasoning. Interesting.
This commercial is the whip. People who have children are certainly entitled to enjoy the miracle of life they have created, and shouldn't continually feel threatened by people who choose to enjoy life in other ways than procreating. This commercial merely showcases the fact that certain elements of life (finishing education, securing a home, traveling the world, etc) are more easily accomplished when one is not responsible for another human beings life.
@shufflestudio Those of us who "enjoy the miracle of life" do not feel theatened. I certainly feel the lives of innocent babies are threatened and so I speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. The thinking this commercial encourages is that children are to be pushed aside and discarded as inconveniences - this in no way insults me, but it does perpetuate a thought process that leads to the inevitable acceptance and encouragement of the murder of such "inconveniences" (read: babies).
I, too, am disgusted by this commercial. It simply upholds the view of children as merchandise we own and can discard at will. Putting children in a store with products makes a child something that can be bought/sold/returned/discarded, and such thinking is dangerous. It is no wonder we live in a world where the murder of babies and the handicapped on life support is presented as a wonderful way to maintain the selfish "happiness" of our own lives.
@mlhein25 no, all it points out is that you don't have to start popping out babies at 18 just because you're fertile. You can delay having children so you can do other things in life.
You obviously didn't understand the symbolism in the commercial if you think they were saying that children are things that can be bought/sold/returned/discarded.
Everyone has the right to choose for themselves not to have kids, or to delay having kids, no matter what you think. Your opinion is irrelevant.
@autumnsylver No, I got the symbolism. As an English professor, I teach it. I don't need to restate my pt. since it was well worded to begin with & now you're just being thick. For fun, though, I'll add that we, as a society, have degraded children to the status of objects. When we want them, we have them. When we don't, we kill them. When we decide our lives are more important than theirs, we pay strangers to take care of them so we can fulfill ourselves. This commercial supports that truth.
@mlhein25 If you think that this commercial "upholds the view of children as merchandise we own and can discard at will." then you most definitely *did not* understand the symbolism. If you really are an English professor, I'm scared for your students.
Society has degraded children to the status of objects? Are you kidding me? Society *revolves* around children.
@mlhein25 I just wanted to explain the symbolism to you, since you clearly didn't get it. It symbolizes different types of lifestyles that women can pick and choose from. It doesn't say that children are something to be owned and discarded at will. I find it funny that that's what you think it meant.
"Your opinion is irrelevant." This is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing, "I can't hear you!" So, thanks again b/c that is a sure sign that you have no valid rebuttal, and the reason for that is b/c I'm speaking the truth while you are quoting deceptions that serve no purpose but to make you feel better for defending the murder of children.
"Everyone has the right to choose for themselves not to have kids, or to delay having kids, no matter what you think." Hmmm, I like how you are purposefully trying to be dense, since I never said the aforementioned. Since I practice and teach NFP, then, yes, I realize (and teach) couples how to attempt to have or to avoid having children. Only, I do this in a way that respects a woman and treats children as gifts rather than burdens.
@mlhein25 If someone truly wants children, then they're a gift. If someone doesn't want them (ie. if the pregnancy was an accident), then they are a burden.
So, now you teach natural family planning? I thought you were an English professor? I suppose next, you'll tell me you're a scientist working for NASA.
Is it really such a bad thing that some people don't want kids? I am not having them because of the many genetic illnesses in my bloodline; how can preventing a future generation from suffering be considered a bad thing? I'm not a career woman, I'm not obsessed with having a big house and a walk-in wardrobe full of shoes - I'm just living life the way I think I should. PS. every human being on this planet makes selfish decisions everyday, parent or not.
Wow, could we get any more selfish than shoving off Mr. Stork for a trip to Paris? More bizarre is the happy, fluffy images coupled with the words "Liver disease, stroke, heart problems, blood clots..." I'd recommend Natural Family Planning over contraception any day. One respects a woman's body by listening to her natural cycle, the other violently alters it with a host of health issues besides. This commercial is ridiculous and insulting to women.
@MissionMoment I didn't see anything wrong with it. I thought it was cute. But then again, I've decided not to have kids, so I guess I don't see it the same way as people with baby rabies.
And how is taking a trip to Paris selfish? Having kids just because you want a cute little baby is selfish.
I'm sorry, but this commercial rubs me the wrong way. Is a baby that much of an interference with someone's life? Do vacations and a bigger house outweigh the beauty of a human life? This commercial comes across as completely self-centered to me.
Are you serious? Jesus, it was already an interference in my life when I was fostering dogs for the families at the women's shelter. And I could leave the dogs alone for a few hours while I went out and ran errands at least without having to drag them along. I could go out with my friends on the weekends without having to track down a babysitter. And I only had to come home to check on them during my lunch breaks at while I was working, I didn't have to shell out for day care.
@CatherineNK Yes, calling it an "interference" in a person's life suggests that there is, in fact, no love for the other person (baby, adult, whatever). To say that the life of another person pales in comparison to a bunch of materialistic, self-interested things is sad indeed. And to compare human babies to the lives of dogs (if that was your intention) simply misses the mark.
@Snackbar47 No, calling it an interference is just a statement of fact. When you have a baby, you can't just decide to go out and then go. You have to plan everything ahead of time and arrange a babysitter first. Having a baby completely changes your life. In that way, it is an interference. You can't still do all the things you did before the baby.
@autumnsylver I agree with everything you've just said. But it seemed like your previous comments suggested that since a baby is an "interference" you should have the right to "choose" (which, to me, sounds like pro-abortion semantics). If I'm reading too much into this and that was not your intention, please forgive me.
@Snackbar47 When I said that women should have the right to choose, I meant the right to choose not to have kids, without being pressured to have kids.
I also believe a woman should have the right to choose abortion though.
@autumnsylver Which is what I thought you meant. I would agree that women should be given the right to choose to have kids or not, but not in the sense that you do. If she is already pregnant and doesn't want the baby, then give it up for adoption. But to suggest that the only available option is to kill the innocent child is misleading and dangerous.
@Snackbar47 I wasn't suggesting that the *only* option was abortion. It's *one* option. Do you realize that most women choose to either keep the baby, or put it up for adoption? But there are some women who don't want to put a child up for adoption only to have it be bounced from foster home to foster home until they turn 18, and they're turned out on their own to fend for themselves, with no family to help them.
@autumnsylver So instead of the child POSSIBLY being tossed around from foster home to foster home it would be better to go ahead and kill it. Using this logic, why don't we just go ahead and kill all kids in foster homes right now? Why not kill the poor and homeless who have tough lives, too? To suggest that a DEAD child is better off than an ALIVE child is preposterous.
@Snackbar47 You're trying to confuse the issue by calling it a child. It's not a child. It's not a person under the law. It has no legal rights. CHILDREN have legal rights. Embryos do not.
@autumnsylver Would you have agreed with this statement when YOU were an embryo (a unique human life at the earliest stage)? Would you have wanted your own mother to decide to "choose" against you? Where would you be if your mom believed that you weren't worth having and believed you, as an embryo, were not worthy of life?
@Snackbar47 Would I have agreed with it when I was an embryo? That's so ridiculous I'm not even going to dignify it with an answer.
If my mother decided against me, I wouldn't exist, so I wouldn't be able to think or feel anything. I can't say that I would feel very badly about it, seeing as how I never would have existed, and therefore wouldn't be aware of the fact that I never existed.
@autumnsylver EXACTLY. You would be dead. If your own mother were not pro-life then you would not of even had the chance at life, which, according to all of this discussion, is at least SOMEWHAT important. If you say that this point doesn't matter and is stupid, then you are ipso facto saying that life itself is unimportant, which undermines literally EVERYTHING.
My mother DID try to terminate me, several times unsuccessfully. I'm OK about it. I am not bitter and we have a good relationship! I'm glad to be alive and I love my life. But if I was terminated, I wouldn't be conscious so it wouldn't matter.
Having a baby is as self-interested as anything else. People will choose to have babies because they want them, I will choose not to because I don`t want them.
Calling other peoples lives sad because they don`t hold there living with their own values and not yours is and as self-centered and close-minded as it gets.
I obviously wasn`t comparing babies to dogs. I was giving an example of something that requires even less responsibly but still interefered with parts of my life.
@CatherineNK In no way did I say (or suggest) that other peoples' lives were sad because they didn't agree with my values. And please know that suggesting that YOUR values/beliefs are the only ones to believe in would, according to you, be just as "self-centered" and "close-minded" as me saying that mine were the ones you should believe in.
@Snackbar47 Yes, a baby IS that much of an interference. The fact that you have to ask that tells me that you don't have any kids. If you want to see how frustrating and stressful it can be, just read some of the mom confessions on Truuconfessions . com. You'd be surprised how many women regret having kids.
And choosing not to have kids is no more selfish than choosing to have kids. Isn't that what the women's rights movement was all about? For women to have the right to choose for themselves?
@autumnsylver First of all, I do have a kid. I am the proud parent to a 1 year-old little girl and I'm absolutely in love with her (you can see some videos of her on my YouTube page if you'd like). Secondly, what a shame to hear that anyone would regret having a child. I know that raising kids isn't easy, but to suggest that you would actually REGRET the life of a child is beyond my understanding. What kind of love is it when one says to a child, "You ruined my life. I wish you didn't exist."?
@Snackbar47 So then, I guess you go out with friends all the time just like you did before the baby? You can decide to go out and then just go, without having to arrange everything ahead of time and arrange for a babysitter?
@autumnsylver Certainly not. My life is drastically different than it was before. But to say that "different" suddenly means "worse" because I suddenly can't go out every night with my buddies is ridiculous. My life has changed in so many wonderful and unimaginable ways that I cannot even begin to express it. To pit the inconvenience of having to find a babysitter at times vs. how much better my life has become because of the chance to love a new daughter of mine is just silly to me.
Some women DO regret having kids. Yes, some regret not having them I know. Each of us is best to choose for ourselves what we want. If having kids is for you, fantastic. If you are a parent love those kids!! If having kids is not for you also fantastic. Don't let anyone else tell you what to choose, you are the one, especially if you are a woman, that will have to live with it. Do what is right for YOU. What is right for others may or may not be right for YOU.
@autumnsylver What exactly is this "right to choose" that you are referring to? Is it the right to choose to keep a baby or put it up for adoption or are you insinuating something else? If you are referring to the so-called "right" to have an abortion (read: kill one's own child) then don't beat around the bush with such soft rhetoric. The abortion issue is not about the rights of a mother, but about the rights of a child. It is a civil rights issue at its core.
@autumnsylver Is it pointless to defend the life of another (completely innocent) human being? If your life was suddenly threatened would you think it pointless for others to try and protect you?
@Snackbar47 The difference is, I'm an adult with full legal rights. To imply that the minute a woman gets pregnant, she shouldn't have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not - for her body to essentially become property of the government - is to imply that the minute a woman gets pregnant, her legal status should be demoted from "person" to "incubator". That, to me, is FAR more disgusting than the so called "murder of babies".
@autumnsylver Yes, you are an adult with full legal rights. But according to the law you never have the "right" to kill the life of another innocent human being. In the case of abortion the life within a mother is a SEPARATE life from the mother. If it is not, then the mother has 2 beating hearts, 4 eyes, 4 arms, etc... A woman's legal status is in no way diminished by the fact that she is pregnant. It is just that the life of the child is ALSO given its due legal status.
@Snackbar47 But if the fetus having legal rights means that the mother no longer has the right to choose abortion, then her rights are being stripped away. Which, in other words, demotes her to the level of "incubator". She no longer has the right to choose for herself. She now only exists as a life support system for the fetus inside her.
@autumnsylver First of all, please don't be afraid to call the "fetus" a baby or child (which is what the fetus actually is). Secondly, abortion is always the direct killing of an innocent human life which, the last I heard, was not a "right" that ever existed in the first place. The killing of an innocent person is always judged as wrong and punishable by our legal system, so why would it suddenly change? Simply because the location of the person? No one EVER has the "right" to do wrong.
@Snackbar47 No, the fetus is a fetus. In the beginning stages, it's called a zygote. After about 8 days, it becomes an embryo. After about 3 months, it's called a fetus. Once it's born, it's called a baby/child. Then it has full legal rights under the law.
The fetus can't survive outside the mother's body (without extreme medical intervention) until about 5 months, so why should it have any legal rights? It's not an autonomous person yet.
Abortion in the third trimester is illegal in most places
@autumnsylver Once again, you're trying to justify abortion through false rhetoric. Call it whatever you want, but the "thing" that shows up at conception is a distinctive human life that only needs time and sustenance before it is born. To say that a person isn't a person because they can't live on their own would also justify infanticide, as I'm pretty sure most babies and toddlers outside of the womb also can't fend for themselves.
@Snackbar47 Sure, it's a human life, but it's not a "person" yet.
It wouldn't justify infanticide. You're using false rhetoric just like you're accusing me of doing. An infant is a baby that has already been born. A fetus is something that is completely dependent on its mother's blood, the vitamins and minerals in her blood, the food she eats, for its very survival. A baby is completely different from a fetus or embryo.
@autumnsylver A newborn is completely dependent on its mother's blood (to make the milk he/she drinks), the vitamins/minerals from her body that enter that milk, the food she eats that help make that milk, for his/her very survival. If she doesn't breastfeed, the baby is still dependent upon someone for its survival - babies can't hold their own bottles, make their own food or feed themselves. Should we defend killing them, too, for the inconvenience they cause any caretaking adult?
@mlhein25 By that logic, farmers should be legally allowed to kill everyone in society, because they grow the food that everyone else is dependent upon.
@autumnsylver Oh, sure. I eat eggs from chickens every week (just like billions of other people). But if you're suggesting that I eat chicken embryos every time I cook an egg than you should do a little more research. Hens lay unfertilized eggs all the time (almost daily) and before they get to the grocery store they are screened (in the chance that the egg may have been fertilized). The VAST majority of eggs sold in a grocery store are unfertilized.
@autumnsylver But even IF the hen's egg were fertilized, it's still just a chicken embryo. NOT a human one. And call me crazy if you must, but I believe humans are a just a LITTLE more important than chickens.
@autumnsylver "So, since you're pro-life, I guess you don't eat eggs?" Thank you, again. You just proved that my arguments were successful since all you can do is grasp at straws.
@Snackbar47 (continued) Most abortions are performed in the embryonic stage, where you wouldn't be able to tell a human embryo from that of a cow, dolphin, chicken, elephant or giraffe embryo.
Humans are animals, just like all the other animals on earth. There's nothing so special about us that makes every single life sacred.
@autumnsylver WHOA WHOA WHOA. There you go. You just explained yourself all right there. We're nothing more than animals. If that's the case, then why protect your life? Or your best friend's life? Or my life? Or anyone's life? Why in the world should we protect ANY human life over the life of a cow? Or a mouse? Or a mosquito?
@autumnsylver But it does mean (if it's true) that you (and I) aren't even a lick more important than the dog down the block, the squirrel in the tree, or the worm in the ground. And if that's the case, then why aren't we protecting the life of every animal out there? Is it immoral to eat meat? Is it immoral to step on an ant? Is it immoral to kill a spider in your own house? And if it's not, then what kind of justification would you have for saying so? There is none.
@Snackbar47 Why were you trying to argue science with me before when you're obviously completely ignorant of the subject? Humans are animals in the kingdom mammalia.
I never said that humans were no more important than a mouse, mosquito or spider. I said there was nothing so special about us that makes every single human life sacred. In other words - humans aren't the only important beings on the planet.
@autumnsylver Because I would argue that humans have a soul completely different than any kind of soul (or whatever you want to call it) than an animal would have. That's the distinction.
@autumnsylver Furthermore, many elderly or disabled people can't always take care of themselves. Is that enough justification to go ahead and murder them as well? And again, don't ignore the fact that the "fetus" itself is a completely distinct person with all of it's own unique DNA (DIFFERENT from the mother's).
@Snackbar47 Elderly and disabled people are autonomous adult PERSONS with legal rights. Killing them would be murder. Removing a parasitic clump of cells is not murder.
@autumnsylver You are suggesting that a human embryo is suddenly only a "parasitic clump of cells". Not only have you rejected all of science with this statement (EVERYONE knows that life a completely UNIQUE human life begins at conception) but you also undermine yourself with this. YOU (and I) were also a "parasitic clump of cells" before. Aren't you glad your mother didn't treat you as such? You were never an egg or a sperm, but you WERE, in fact, an embryo - a VERY young human life.
@Snackbar47 An embryo is parasitic in the sense that it takes whatever nutrients it needs from the mother's body without any concern for the mother's body. That's what a parasite does - indiscriminately takes from its host.
The development of life begins at conception, but to say that *life* begins at conception is false. There are many things that can go wrong that can cause miscarriage. If a woman has a miscarriage, are you in favour of her being charged with manslaughter and put in jail?
@autumnsylver Absolutely not! A woman does not purposefully cause a miscarriage in order to get rid of the baby. Women (oftentimes encouraged by selfish men) who choose to "abort" their children are doing so purposefully with the full intent of not giving the child life.
@Snackbar47 So why are you calling abortion murder, yet miscarriage wouldn't be manslaughter? Manslaughter is the accidental killing of a person (ie. not premeditated). Miscarriage would fit that description.
@autumnsylver Because there is no direct intention of killing the baby. It's basic ethics. If there is no direct intention to kill and it was just an accident, then there is no wrong. But if it is freely chosen, then there is complete culpability. It's like saying, "I accidentally ran over a person that I didn't see" or "I knew there was a person there and I purposefully chose to run over them". It's pretty simple.
@Snackbar47 "Because there is no direct intention of killing the baby." Which would classify it as manslaughter rather than homicide. Manslaughter is homicide without any intention or forethought.
So again - why do you consider abortion murder but you don't consider miscarriage manslaughter? It just makes sense that if you're going to call abortion murder, then miscarriage (killing of an unborn child without premeditation) would be manslaughter.
@autumnsylver Funny that you bring up manslaughter, because according to our current legal system people who have killed the life of a pregnant mother have not only been charged for the death of the mother, but also the unborn baby. Why would this be if the baby were not a real human life?
Your understanding of manslaughter is flawed. Manslaughter still involves SOME guilt, albeit less than intentional homicide. Miscarriage involves ZERO guilt.
@autumnsylver Once miscarriage entered the debate & it was insinuated that a mother is responsible for her m/c (re: manslaughter def), I couldn't keep quiet. Having suffered 2 m/c's, I am well educated and well versed on the causes, the most common PROVEN ones including "chromosomal abnormalities, collagen vascular diseases, infections, and abnormal structural abnormality." In no way does the mother "accidentally kill" her baby; to say as much is inaccurate, not to mention, cruel.
@mlhein25 I wasn't saying that mothers should be charged with manslaughter for having a miscarriage. My point was that it makes no logical sense to call abortion murder if you're not also going to call miscarriage manslaughter.
@autumnsylver The problem with this argument is that manslaughter involves responsibility, albeit of a lesser or diminished sort. But who is responsible for a miscarriage in the case of responsible mother who is doing everything "according to the book"? Surely not the mother who wishes for the baby to be born. Surely not the baby. It is due to something beyond their control, whereas manslaughter is a term that inherently recognizes responsibility to a certain, but real, degree.
@autumnsylver EXAMPLE: Deliberately driving a car into someone and killing them is murder. Driving recklessly and accidentally killing someone is involuntary manslaughter. Or, after being cut off in traffic, pursuing someone and driving them off the road and into a wall might result in voluntary manslaughter. Having a tire blowout while driving, causing you to hit a pedestrian, is an accident due to the failure of equipment beyond the knowledge/control of the driver.
@autumnsylver The first corresponds, of course, to murder. The latter, I think, corresponds to a miscarriage--unless, of course, the miscarriage was caused by an irresponsible action that was known to possibly cause a miscarriage, in which case it would correspond in some meaningful way to involuntary manslaughter.
@autumnsylver No - That is exactly what YOU were suggesting earlier. My entire point is that miscarriages are not (and should not) ever be considered manslaughter. Your flawed understanding of manslaughter (which I thoroughly explained already) continues to discredit every line of reasoning or argument that you give. When you finally come to terms with manslaughter as it should be properly understood I will begin to listen to you. But to keep pounding the same faulty argument is a waste of time.
@Snackbar47 No, that's not what I was suggesting AT ALL. Like I said, you are completely missing my point. My point is that it's illogical to say that abortion is murder while miscarriage isn't manslaughter. Both, according to your logic, are killing a child, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Miscarriage is unintentional. Manslaughter is unintentional. So according to your "abortion is murder" logic, miscarriage should be considered manslaughter.
@autumnsylver Snackbar47 has no faulty understanding of manslaughter & before you say it, neither do I; YOU are the one whose def. of manslaughter is faulty in that it changes to suit your needs. Manslaughter is not simply defined as "unintentional". Manslaughter IS responsibility for a death through negligence.
@mlhein25 You are a fucking bitch you know that?! I am DEEPLY OFFENDED by you comments on miscarriage or in your case "manslaughter". Miscarriage can be caused by anything and it does not necessarily mean negligence. My mother has tried MULTIPLE times to have a baby before me. 5 times actually. Each of them ended up being a miscarriage. AND IT WAS NOT DUE TO NEGLIGENCE! She tried her best to keep her babies alive but she couldn't, ok? So stop being closed minded and THINK before you say shit.
Wow soo many trols here. LOL
Bubishi8 1 month ago
Why does this have so many dislikes?? Do 3/4 of the population still think women should have no control over their bodies? Middle Ages, here we come!
Portocala15 4 months ago
Imma be like, girl did you take you beeyotch?
jackofclubz 4 months ago
Bitch was like, fuck off storky.
jackofclubz 4 months ago
@jackofclubz I'd take the stork, it's adorable! I'm sure the bundle was just its packed lunch :D
juliewashere88 4 months ago in playlist Advertisment Ads 2
* women without kids are selfish I ment , not with kids
SugaryGlam 6 months ago
@SugaryGlam The only reason women have kids is because *they* want to. That's more selfish than not having kids.
autumnsylver 6 months ago
@autumnsylver Yes, this sugaryglam dumbass is, well...a dumbass. XD
SickMouth 5 months ago
Od paying job working with my grandma who was CEO of the company and she taught children with mental problems and did soccer , so yes a women can do stuff with a kid, but it would be easier if they didn't have a kid also...idk how to explain it, at first I was taught women should have kids and women with kids were selfish....now that I'm older I'm thinking of waiting and getting a head in my carreer and having fun, then kids but I wanna have fun for a while
SugaryGlam 6 months ago
I don't see what the big uproar is, not everywomen wants a kid young. Or wants a kid in general. Women now adays want to live life longer and expierence and get more goals and reach more goals. You can't always do that with a kid on your arm. Not saying if you have kids you can't do all that cause I'm confident and proud of women who have kids and acheieved all there goals but its hard for them in the first place to all that. I'm 16 and barly got on Beyaz, my mother had me at 23 and she had a go
SugaryGlam 6 months ago
I wish I could just go to the store and buy a trip to Paris.
MusicsMyOnlyEscape 7 months ago
One billion will die due to lack. Millions live in unbearable conditions & struggle for everyday basics. And society is suppose to recognize the beauty and dignity of MOTHERHOOD. Kudos to those women who chose not to populate an already over-populated planet.. There is not enough to take care of the masses. Do a search on famines. The growing problem will not be solved by producing more people.
WilliamsRachael 7 months ago
@WilliamsRachael Thanks for your post. For every child that is born, another child will die from hunger and want. It is a selfish act to have a child. Suffering is all around and getting more extensive as each day passes. If a child is what is wanted, adopt one of the millions, the throw away child that nobody wanted. Give those already born a chance at life. Planet earth cannot sustain any more population.
tbird54100 7 months ago
Comment removed
snivithefox 8 months ago
@snivithefox Not everyone wants to be a mother at 18 >.>
Iwuzhere321 7 months ago
@snivithefox
Society already pretend motherhood is a hell of a lot better than it actually is. How about we recognize the beauty and dignity of women as people rather than people factories?
juliewashere88 4 months ago
@juliewashere88 Motherhood may have its drawbacks, but it is a great mode for women to show that they are a fundamental part of society. Motherhood in itself is truly beautiful and dignified, only some people disagree with this because it denies them some of their social opportunities. However if women REALLY don't want children, they don't need sex.
snivithefox 4 months ago
@snivithefox Um, breeding a "great" way for women to burden society. I'd rather be a part of society that's actually productive and useful, rather than contributing to overpopulation and being a leech.
If women REALLY don't want children, we can use birth control and/or get sterilization and/or have abortions and have all the sex we want because our lives belong to ourselves.
juliewashere88 4 months ago
@snivithefox Lol, seriously? So women who don't want babies should just live an asexual life, without a romantic partner??? Because I don't know many men who would want to have a sexless relationship. Yeah, that's unlikely to happen, unless the woman is actually asexual. I will enjoy my body as I see fit, thank you very much. Perhaps I don't "need" sex, in the same way I don't need the cup of coffee I'm drinking right now, but HELL I want it. If that bothers you, might I suggest Saudi Arabia?
Kittycatriona 4 months ago
@Kittycatriona Hell, I'M asexual. I still think this prude @snivithefox is fucking crazy. I guess s/he doesn't have to worry about getting laid though, spending all of her days playing Minecraft and Total War. Good games to be sure, but they seem to be his/her entire life. Fuck that.
juliewashere88 4 months ago
@juliewashere88 Fuck that indeed. People can go do whatever the hell they like with their own bodies, so long as they are not harming another being I could not give a fuck. But people who feel like they are entitled to control other peoples choices are sad bastards. I guess they don't have their own lives to attend to, they are too busy being obsessive about others. It's like some sort of weird voyeurism. Basically, they can't stand that many of us are having more fun :p
Kittycatriona 4 months ago
@Kittycatriona I could speculate the life, or lack thereof, of said person, but I figure there's no point. I figure their reason for bitching here is simple - misery loves company.
You're right, people who can't respect the sexual and reproductive choices of others are sad bastards. This @snivithefox is a pathetic misogynist.
juliewashere88 4 months ago
@juliewashere88 I am sorry that I come across as someone who dislikes women for all that they are, but I am strongly against this. I believe that women in today's society are more likely to be pressured into an abortion than to actually decide to make the decision themselves, because men, media, and friends think that this is a better decision for them. Abortion also does not seem like a natural solution for overpopulation because it has more negative biology affects on women than positive ones.
snivithefox 4 months ago
@snivithefox
But pressuring women TO have kids, and, more than that, degrading their means to prevent that is A-OK? No, you don't get to attack birthcontrol and then suddenly pretend to give a shit about women's choices.
Not only does Beyaz have fuck all to do with abortion, but the shit you've said about abortion is blatantly pulled right out of your ass. Women have abortions because they freely choose to do so, and abortion hurts no one.
Keep your ignorance and misogyny to yourself.
juliewashere88 4 months ago
@Kittycatriona If I really do come across as one who wishes to control others in all modes of their life, I am sorry. That is not my intention. I believe that women should have their own reproductive opportunities and should not have to necessarily adhere to society's norm. If they want to bring about their love into the world by having a child, why are they cut down for doing so or entirely denied one? It seems that media and society wish to deny the fact that motherhood is natural in life.
snivithefox 4 months ago
@snivithefox @snivithefox So why would you make a comment like "However if women REALLY don't want children, they don't need sex" if you belief women should have their "reproductive opportunities"? What about the choice NOT to reproduce? Society does NOT cut mothers down, in fact it elevates them to ridiculous demi-goddess status where the mother can do no wrong. And how does this ad "cut motherhood down" in any way. It's about choices, nothing more, nothing less.
Kittycatriona 4 months ago
@snivithefox
" If they want to bring about their love into the world by having a child, why are they cut down for doing so or entirely denied one? It seems that media and society wish to deny the fact that motherhood is natural in life."
Bullshit. You made all of that up. Motherhood is foisted upon women as a social expectation and those that refuse are ostracized. Not only that, but motherhood is revered and privileged to an insane degree to the point of being detrimental to everyone else.
juliewashere88 4 months ago
I don't understand why this is controversial. I mean it's not like that one condom ad where a guy looks at his screaming brat, looks at the condom, and realizes if he'd just wrapped it up...
This is simply showing the reality in a subtle but noticeable way, no real hate.
beefchops2011 8 months ago 3
@beefchops2011 You said it. At no point does this say "having kids is wrong/bad/etc". THe response is ridiculous.
Tequilafuzz 8 months ago
P.S. Love this video!
AthenaMarina2 9 months ago
I'd take the stork but leave the baby :) <3 animals :P
VoidIVI 9 months ago 4
I LOVE this commercial.
juliewashere88 9 months ago
Ah the Asian girl steals white hipster boy from white hipster girl. So poetic.
chafina 9 months ago
sellout asian girls. pathetic
MahMohm 9 months ago
Finally found it! Dont take BS
SereneBlood 9 months ago
because obviously birth control = total life control.
manifestoxofxlove 9 months ago
@manifestoxofxlove
No, but it sure as shit helps.
No birth control = no control.
juliewashere88 9 months ago
beyaz sounds like BS
2good4utyra 9 months ago 4
@2good4utyra Sounds like BS? It is BS with all dem damn side efx!
hgdagr8one 9 months ago
BEYAZ. Sounds like a mix of biatch and ass
TrickyEmu 9 months ago
i wish this store existed
MyAngelsEyes 9 months ago
@MyAngelsEyes Me too :)
juliewashere88 9 months ago
Women be shoppin'.
jaybreak 9 months ago
Lol, I was listening to this commercial while using the computer and I thought the lady was saying BS. XDD!
ReadingWeirdo 9 months ago
Everyone who is upset with this video apparently believes that contraception is wrong & women should spend their entire lives between pregnancies, with their only purpose on this earth being a vessel for more life. Which is bullshit.
Here's the thing, the stork is in the same store as the trip to Paris and the perfect man, it's something that many women will want, and many women will not. I'm sure there are many people who would turn down a trip to Paris, just as some don't want kids right now.
kevinfuckingweeks 9 months ago 4
it's sad how so few people see what's wrong with this.
flamingrhinopoo 9 months ago 2
@flamingrhinopoo I see it! I find it very disturbing.
guineverantha 9 months ago
@flamingrhinopoo
Yeah, what's wrong with this is that stores like this don't exist.
juliewashere88 9 months ago
@SJulie221 ... defensive much?! I don't pity your choice not to have kids; I pity how much time you spend focusing on what other people might say about your choice. I admire your comment through "We are actively involved in humanitarian organizations & the community." ... I don't think anyone cares to know how much you spend on charity donations. I think its braggy, rude, and obtuse to disclose that. I am detecting a high need of your's to justify and/or prove yourself. Wow.
Altimillia 10 months ago
@Altimillia
I'm sorry but people seem to care a hell of a lot about whether we childfree have kids or not.
We are called selfish and all sorts of things, and yet most of us are fine with other people's choices.
If we seem to feel the need to justify our choices, maybe it's cos of people not understanding, not respecting that we want different things out of life. If we seem defensive, it's cos so many of us have family/friends/colleagues/strangers asking us to explain our choice then judge us.
AthenaMarina2 9 months ago
Love this commercial!! I'd friggin' DROP that Asian chick though. This commercial isn't about WHICH choices you'd make, it's about the fact that there ARE choices. Wish it was as simple as going to a store and choosing what you want...
k9j6l8 10 months ago
BIAAATCH!!!
Solowizard 10 months ago
Beyaz? Sounds more like BS
supermansam18 10 months ago
Miscarriage is a natural act of nature in the body. Abortion is not. So to say miscarriage should be called manslaughter is absurd. There is no comparison in the 2. - On another note, if a woman chooses to not have a child, then so be it. Some women are meant or want to be mothers and some don't . We live in crazy times where choice is something to fight for. God bless!
Swim2life 10 months ago
PRO LIFE!!!!!
SowTingSWAAAA 11 months ago
My spouse of 35 yrs. & I are child-free by choice. We are actively involved in humanitarian organizations & the community. We are not self-centered takers who only think of our wants, our needs. We do not own a lavish home or drive luxury vehicles. 1/3 of our income is given to charities. Take no pity on our childless decision. We are not empty, void of happiness. Quite the opposite. Children may add to parent's lives, but parenting was not my choice.
SJulie221 11 months ago 12
Comment removed
Altimillia 10 months ago
Chosing to not to bring children in an already overpopulated world, one filled with hatred and endless discord, was a personal choice. This does not make me selfish, a taker, one who thinks only of myself. Millions go hungry, struggle daily for the basics of food, water and shelter. One in four American children face hunger. The solution is not additional populace. Thankful for Birth Control; reproductive rights and freedom to choose.
MannieMay9 11 months ago 2
Guess I'm just another one of those shallow sluts that would take a trip to paris over a screaming, shitting, drooling infant any day. Pass the baguette.
Babyslothwrangler 11 months ago 26
@Babyslothwrangler You were once a "screaming, shitting, drooling infant" as well. Glad your mom still loved you into life regardless of that FACT.
Snackbar47 11 months ago 5
@Snackbar47 No shit really? I thought I was dropped on to the planet as a 20 year old. Thank you for enlightening me. What's your point? Nowhere did I say that there's anything wrong with being a shitting, screaming, drooling infant, I just said I don't care to have one, thanks very much.
Babyslothwrangler 11 months ago 2
@Snackbar47
I'm sure @babyslothwrangler wasn't a "screaming, shitting, drooling infant" until after being born. He/she couldn't have been any of those things before he/she ever existed.
And nothing is "loved into life." Biology doesn't work that way.
juliewashere88 9 months ago 2
FACT: Typing the word fact in capital letters does not make your statement any more factual.
Babyslothwrangler 11 months ago 3
Gosh people should just stop bitching at eachother and tell me if the pill has worked for anyone with PMDD, or caused major side effects.
KreatuRRR 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autumnsylver "By that logic, farmers should be legally allowed to kill everyone in society, because they grow the food that everyone else is dependent upon." Thank you!!! You just helped prove my point that your argument (re: a mother's life is more important simply b/c her unborn baby needs her to survive and so she has the right to kill him/her) is illogical and invalid.
mlhein25 11 months ago
There is a choice: women can choose to respect themselves and thereby encourage others to respect them by having higher standards and refusing to allow herself to be used for sex in the 1st place. There are 97% effective methods of avoiding pregnancy that require respect for a woman rather than BC, which encourages a woman's body to be used as nothing more than a sperm receptacle . It's not surprising chivalry is dead; women killed it.
mlhein25 11 months ago
I rather like this commercial, it actually presents the option to refuse to have children in favor of living your own life. The Pill isn't my birth control option of choice, I'm going to be sterilized, but the facts remain the same, there is a choice, women can delay or even entirely forgo reproduction in favor of other accomplishments.
RemiBrokenWing 11 months ago 3
The first thought that popped in my head after watching this: "Greed is good". When we hear Micheal Douglas speak it with such confidence we automatically think it is something evil and to be avoided, but when women would rather "pass" on being pregnant to follow other pursuits - that greed it actually praised! Unbelieveable.
FACT: Almost ALL oral contraceptives and ALL IUDs are abortifacients. A women on average will lose a pregnancy every 12-18 months while on the pill.
tigerlileigh16 11 months ago
@tigerlileigh16 What you said was dead-on. I can't believe these women actually agreed to be in this commercial.
mamakkay 11 months ago
Did you guys see that chick at 00:17? I would've slapped her and taken my man. XD
jackiechan4AAR 11 months ago 2
Ah, I wish there was an actual store like this where you get to pick what you want to happen in your life
CountryBarbie777 11 months ago
So a commercial offering an option for women to avoid pregnancy and therefore a potential abortion is bad too? I see. So either you are a breeder or a murderer by your reasoning. Interesting.
shufflestudio 11 months ago
This commercial is the whip. People who have children are certainly entitled to enjoy the miracle of life they have created, and shouldn't continually feel threatened by people who choose to enjoy life in other ways than procreating. This commercial merely showcases the fact that certain elements of life (finishing education, securing a home, traveling the world, etc) are more easily accomplished when one is not responsible for another human beings life.
shufflestudio 11 months ago 2
@shufflestudio Those of us who "enjoy the miracle of life" do not feel theatened. I certainly feel the lives of innocent babies are threatened and so I speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. The thinking this commercial encourages is that children are to be pushed aside and discarded as inconveniences - this in no way insults me, but it does perpetuate a thought process that leads to the inevitable acceptance and encouragement of the murder of such "inconveniences" (read: babies).
mlhein25 11 months ago
I, too, am disgusted by this commercial. It simply upholds the view of children as merchandise we own and can discard at will. Putting children in a store with products makes a child something that can be bought/sold/returned/discarded, and such thinking is dangerous. It is no wonder we live in a world where the murder of babies and the handicapped on life support is presented as a wonderful way to maintain the selfish "happiness" of our own lives.
mlhein25 11 months ago
@mlhein25 no, all it points out is that you don't have to start popping out babies at 18 just because you're fertile. You can delay having children so you can do other things in life.
You obviously didn't understand the symbolism in the commercial if you think they were saying that children are things that can be bought/sold/returned/discarded.
Everyone has the right to choose for themselves not to have kids, or to delay having kids, no matter what you think. Your opinion is irrelevant.
autumnsylver 11 months ago 2
@autumnsylver No, I got the symbolism. As an English professor, I teach it. I don't need to restate my pt. since it was well worded to begin with & now you're just being thick. For fun, though, I'll add that we, as a society, have degraded children to the status of objects. When we want them, we have them. When we don't, we kill them. When we decide our lives are more important than theirs, we pay strangers to take care of them so we can fulfill ourselves. This commercial supports that truth.
mlhein25 11 months ago
@mlhein25 If you think that this commercial "upholds the view of children as merchandise we own and can discard at will." then you most definitely *did not* understand the symbolism. If you really are an English professor, I'm scared for your students.
Society has degraded children to the status of objects? Are you kidding me? Society *revolves* around children.
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@mlhein25 I just wanted to explain the symbolism to you, since you clearly didn't get it. It symbolizes different types of lifestyles that women can pick and choose from. It doesn't say that children are something to be owned and discarded at will. I find it funny that that's what you think it meant.
autumnsylver 11 months ago
"Your opinion is irrelevant." This is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing, "I can't hear you!" So, thanks again b/c that is a sure sign that you have no valid rebuttal, and the reason for that is b/c I'm speaking the truth while you are quoting deceptions that serve no purpose but to make you feel better for defending the murder of children.
mlhein25 11 months ago
@mlhein25 You keep telling yourself that.
autumnsylver 11 months ago
"Everyone has the right to choose for themselves not to have kids, or to delay having kids, no matter what you think." Hmmm, I like how you are purposefully trying to be dense, since I never said the aforementioned. Since I practice and teach NFP, then, yes, I realize (and teach) couples how to attempt to have or to avoid having children. Only, I do this in a way that respects a woman and treats children as gifts rather than burdens.
mlhein25 11 months ago
@mlhein25 If someone truly wants children, then they're a gift. If someone doesn't want them (ie. if the pregnancy was an accident), then they are a burden.
So, now you teach natural family planning? I thought you were an English professor? I suppose next, you'll tell me you're a scientist working for NASA.
autumnsylver 11 months ago
Is it really such a bad thing that some people don't want kids? I am not having them because of the many genetic illnesses in my bloodline; how can preventing a future generation from suffering be considered a bad thing? I'm not a career woman, I'm not obsessed with having a big house and a walk-in wardrobe full of shoes - I'm just living life the way I think I should. PS. every human being on this planet makes selfish decisions everyday, parent or not.
ChiBiMo 11 months ago 4
This commercial is awful.
lacsoc10 11 months ago
Wow, could we get any more selfish than shoving off Mr. Stork for a trip to Paris? More bizarre is the happy, fluffy images coupled with the words "Liver disease, stroke, heart problems, blood clots..." I'd recommend Natural Family Planning over contraception any day. One respects a woman's body by listening to her natural cycle, the other violently alters it with a host of health issues besides. This commercial is ridiculous and insulting to women.
MissionMoment 11 months ago
Comment removed
pigscanswim 11 months ago
Comment removed
pigscanswim 11 months ago
@MissionMoment I didn't see anything wrong with it. I thought it was cute. But then again, I've decided not to have kids, so I guess I don't see it the same way as people with baby rabies.
And how is taking a trip to Paris selfish? Having kids just because you want a cute little baby is selfish.
autumnsylver 11 months ago
Comment removed
autumnsylver 11 months ago
I'm sorry, but this commercial rubs me the wrong way. Is a baby that much of an interference with someone's life? Do vacations and a bigger house outweigh the beauty of a human life? This commercial comes across as completely self-centered to me.
Snackbar47 11 months ago
Comment removed
CatherineNK 11 months ago
@Snackbar47
Are you serious? Jesus, it was already an interference in my life when I was fostering dogs for the families at the women's shelter. And I could leave the dogs alone for a few hours while I went out and ran errands at least without having to drag them along. I could go out with my friends on the weekends without having to track down a babysitter. And I only had to come home to check on them during my lunch breaks at while I was working, I didn't have to shell out for day care.
CatherineNK 11 months ago
@CatherineNK Yes, calling it an "interference" in a person's life suggests that there is, in fact, no love for the other person (baby, adult, whatever). To say that the life of another person pales in comparison to a bunch of materialistic, self-interested things is sad indeed. And to compare human babies to the lives of dogs (if that was your intention) simply misses the mark.
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@Snackbar47 No, calling it an interference is just a statement of fact. When you have a baby, you can't just decide to go out and then go. You have to plan everything ahead of time and arrange a babysitter first. Having a baby completely changes your life. In that way, it is an interference. You can't still do all the things you did before the baby.
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver I agree with everything you've just said. But it seemed like your previous comments suggested that since a baby is an "interference" you should have the right to "choose" (which, to me, sounds like pro-abortion semantics). If I'm reading too much into this and that was not your intention, please forgive me.
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@Snackbar47 When I said that women should have the right to choose, I meant the right to choose not to have kids, without being pressured to have kids.
I also believe a woman should have the right to choose abortion though.
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver Which is what I thought you meant. I would agree that women should be given the right to choose to have kids or not, but not in the sense that you do. If she is already pregnant and doesn't want the baby, then give it up for adoption. But to suggest that the only available option is to kill the innocent child is misleading and dangerous.
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@Snackbar47 I wasn't suggesting that the *only* option was abortion. It's *one* option. Do you realize that most women choose to either keep the baby, or put it up for adoption? But there are some women who don't want to put a child up for adoption only to have it be bounced from foster home to foster home until they turn 18, and they're turned out on their own to fend for themselves, with no family to help them.
Millions of children don't get adopted.
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver So instead of the child POSSIBLY being tossed around from foster home to foster home it would be better to go ahead and kill it. Using this logic, why don't we just go ahead and kill all kids in foster homes right now? Why not kill the poor and homeless who have tough lives, too? To suggest that a DEAD child is better off than an ALIVE child is preposterous.
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@Snackbar47 You're trying to confuse the issue by calling it a child. It's not a child. It's not a person under the law. It has no legal rights. CHILDREN have legal rights. Embryos do not.
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver Would you have agreed with this statement when YOU were an embryo (a unique human life at the earliest stage)? Would you have wanted your own mother to decide to "choose" against you? Where would you be if your mom believed that you weren't worth having and believed you, as an embryo, were not worthy of life?
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@Snackbar47 Would I have agreed with it when I was an embryo? That's so ridiculous I'm not even going to dignify it with an answer.
If my mother decided against me, I wouldn't exist, so I wouldn't be able to think or feel anything. I can't say that I would feel very badly about it, seeing as how I never would have existed, and therefore wouldn't be aware of the fact that I never existed.
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver EXACTLY. You would be dead. If your own mother were not pro-life then you would not of even had the chance at life, which, according to all of this discussion, is at least SOMEWHAT important. If you say that this point doesn't matter and is stupid, then you are ipso facto saying that life itself is unimportant, which undermines literally EVERYTHING.
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@Snackbar47 No, I wouldn't be dead. I never would have existed in the first place.
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@Snackbar47
My mother DID try to terminate me, several times unsuccessfully. I'm OK about it. I am not bitter and we have a good relationship! I'm glad to be alive and I love my life. But if I was terminated, I wouldn't be conscious so it wouldn't matter.
AthenaMarina2 9 months ago
@Snackbar47
Having a baby is as self-interested as anything else. People will choose to have babies because they want them, I will choose not to because I don`t want them.
Calling other peoples lives sad because they don`t hold there living with their own values and not yours is and as self-centered and close-minded as it gets.
I obviously wasn`t comparing babies to dogs. I was giving an example of something that requires even less responsibly but still interefered with parts of my life.
CatherineNK 11 months ago
@CatherineNK In no way did I say (or suggest) that other peoples' lives were sad because they didn't agree with my values. And please know that suggesting that YOUR values/beliefs are the only ones to believe in would, according to you, be just as "self-centered" and "close-minded" as me saying that mine were the ones you should believe in.
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@Snackbar47 Yes, a baby IS that much of an interference. The fact that you have to ask that tells me that you don't have any kids. If you want to see how frustrating and stressful it can be, just read some of the mom confessions on Truuconfessions . com. You'd be surprised how many women regret having kids.
And choosing not to have kids is no more selfish than choosing to have kids. Isn't that what the women's rights movement was all about? For women to have the right to choose for themselves?
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver First of all, I do have a kid. I am the proud parent to a 1 year-old little girl and I'm absolutely in love with her (you can see some videos of her on my YouTube page if you'd like). Secondly, what a shame to hear that anyone would regret having a child. I know that raising kids isn't easy, but to suggest that you would actually REGRET the life of a child is beyond my understanding. What kind of love is it when one says to a child, "You ruined my life. I wish you didn't exist."?
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@Snackbar47 So then, I guess you go out with friends all the time just like you did before the baby? You can decide to go out and then just go, without having to arrange everything ahead of time and arrange for a babysitter?
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver Certainly not. My life is drastically different than it was before. But to say that "different" suddenly means "worse" because I suddenly can't go out every night with my buddies is ridiculous. My life has changed in so many wonderful and unimaginable ways that I cannot even begin to express it. To pit the inconvenience of having to find a babysitter at times vs. how much better my life has become because of the chance to love a new daughter of mine is just silly to me.
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@Snackbar47 No one said that "interference" meant "worse". But the fact remains, that babies are an interference.
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver Sure. And at the same time a true blessing.
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@Snackbar47
Some women DO regret having kids. Yes, some regret not having them I know. Each of us is best to choose for ourselves what we want. If having kids is for you, fantastic. If you are a parent love those kids!! If having kids is not for you also fantastic. Don't let anyone else tell you what to choose, you are the one, especially if you are a woman, that will have to live with it. Do what is right for YOU. What is right for others may or may not be right for YOU.
AthenaMarina2 9 months ago
@autumnsylver What exactly is this "right to choose" that you are referring to? Is it the right to choose to keep a baby or put it up for adoption or are you insinuating something else? If you are referring to the so-called "right" to have an abortion (read: kill one's own child) then don't beat around the bush with such soft rhetoric. The abortion issue is not about the rights of a mother, but about the rights of a child. It is a civil rights issue at its core.
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@Snackbar47 No. Don't be so oversensitive. I was referring to the right to choose to not have kids.
I'll let your other comment about "killing your own child" go, since I don't want to get involved in an endless, pointless argument.
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver Is it pointless to defend the life of another (completely innocent) human being? If your life was suddenly threatened would you think it pointless for others to try and protect you?
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@Snackbar47 The difference is, I'm an adult with full legal rights. To imply that the minute a woman gets pregnant, she shouldn't have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not - for her body to essentially become property of the government - is to imply that the minute a woman gets pregnant, her legal status should be demoted from "person" to "incubator". That, to me, is FAR more disgusting than the so called "murder of babies".
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver Yes, you are an adult with full legal rights. But according to the law you never have the "right" to kill the life of another innocent human being. In the case of abortion the life within a mother is a SEPARATE life from the mother. If it is not, then the mother has 2 beating hearts, 4 eyes, 4 arms, etc... A woman's legal status is in no way diminished by the fact that she is pregnant. It is just that the life of the child is ALSO given its due legal status.
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@Snackbar47 But if the fetus having legal rights means that the mother no longer has the right to choose abortion, then her rights are being stripped away. Which, in other words, demotes her to the level of "incubator". She no longer has the right to choose for herself. She now only exists as a life support system for the fetus inside her.
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver First of all, please don't be afraid to call the "fetus" a baby or child (which is what the fetus actually is). Secondly, abortion is always the direct killing of an innocent human life which, the last I heard, was not a "right" that ever existed in the first place. The killing of an innocent person is always judged as wrong and punishable by our legal system, so why would it suddenly change? Simply because the location of the person? No one EVER has the "right" to do wrong.
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@Snackbar47 No, the fetus is a fetus. In the beginning stages, it's called a zygote. After about 8 days, it becomes an embryo. After about 3 months, it's called a fetus. Once it's born, it's called a baby/child. Then it has full legal rights under the law.
The fetus can't survive outside the mother's body (without extreme medical intervention) until about 5 months, so why should it have any legal rights? It's not an autonomous person yet.
Abortion in the third trimester is illegal in most places
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver Once again, you're trying to justify abortion through false rhetoric. Call it whatever you want, but the "thing" that shows up at conception is a distinctive human life that only needs time and sustenance before it is born. To say that a person isn't a person because they can't live on their own would also justify infanticide, as I'm pretty sure most babies and toddlers outside of the womb also can't fend for themselves.
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@Snackbar47 Sure, it's a human life, but it's not a "person" yet.
It wouldn't justify infanticide. You're using false rhetoric just like you're accusing me of doing. An infant is a baby that has already been born. A fetus is something that is completely dependent on its mother's blood, the vitamins and minerals in her blood, the food she eats, for its very survival. A baby is completely different from a fetus or embryo.
(continued)
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver A newborn is completely dependent on its mother's blood (to make the milk he/she drinks), the vitamins/minerals from her body that enter that milk, the food she eats that help make that milk, for his/her very survival. If she doesn't breastfeed, the baby is still dependent upon someone for its survival - babies can't hold their own bottles, make their own food or feed themselves. Should we defend killing them, too, for the inconvenience they cause any caretaking adult?
mlhein25 11 months ago
@mlhein25 By that logic, farmers should be legally allowed to kill everyone in society, because they grow the food that everyone else is dependent upon.
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver PS - By your own def, we are all just "clusters of cells," you included, at any age.
mlhein25 11 months ago
@mlhein25 So, since you're pro-life, I guess you don't eat eggs?
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver Human eggs that have been fertilized? No.
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@Snackbar47 No, I was referring to chicken eggs.
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver Oh, sure. I eat eggs from chickens every week (just like billions of other people). But if you're suggesting that I eat chicken embryos every time I cook an egg than you should do a little more research. Hens lay unfertilized eggs all the time (almost daily) and before they get to the grocery store they are screened (in the chance that the egg may have been fertilized). The VAST majority of eggs sold in a grocery store are unfertilized.
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@autumnsylver But even IF the hen's egg were fertilized, it's still just a chicken embryo. NOT a human one. And call me crazy if you must, but I believe humans are a just a LITTLE more important than chickens.
Snackbar47 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autumnsylver "So, since you're pro-life, I guess you don't eat eggs?" Thank you, again. You just proved that my arguments were successful since all you can do is grasp at straws.
mlhein25 11 months ago
@Snackbar47 (continued) Most abortions are performed in the embryonic stage, where you wouldn't be able to tell a human embryo from that of a cow, dolphin, chicken, elephant or giraffe embryo.
Humans are animals, just like all the other animals on earth. There's nothing so special about us that makes every single life sacred.
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver WHOA WHOA WHOA. There you go. You just explained yourself all right there. We're nothing more than animals. If that's the case, then why protect your life? Or your best friend's life? Or my life? Or anyone's life? Why in the world should we protect ANY human life over the life of a cow? Or a mouse? Or a mosquito?
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@Snackbar47 Humans *are* animals. That doesn't mean we have to roll around in the dirt and start killing each other.
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver But it does mean (if it's true) that you (and I) aren't even a lick more important than the dog down the block, the squirrel in the tree, or the worm in the ground. And if that's the case, then why aren't we protecting the life of every animal out there? Is it immoral to eat meat? Is it immoral to step on an ant? Is it immoral to kill a spider in your own house? And if it's not, then what kind of justification would you have for saying so? There is none.
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@Snackbar47 Why were you trying to argue science with me before when you're obviously completely ignorant of the subject? Humans are animals in the kingdom mammalia.
I never said that humans were no more important than a mouse, mosquito or spider. I said there was nothing so special about us that makes every single human life sacred. In other words - humans aren't the only important beings on the planet.
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver Because I would argue that humans have a soul completely different than any kind of soul (or whatever you want to call it) than an animal would have. That's the distinction.
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@Snackbar47 Since it can't be proven that humans have a soul, that's just your opinion and nothing more.
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver Furthermore, many elderly or disabled people can't always take care of themselves. Is that enough justification to go ahead and murder them as well? And again, don't ignore the fact that the "fetus" itself is a completely distinct person with all of it's own unique DNA (DIFFERENT from the mother's).
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@Snackbar47 Elderly and disabled people are autonomous adult PERSONS with legal rights. Killing them would be murder. Removing a parasitic clump of cells is not murder.
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver You are suggesting that a human embryo is suddenly only a "parasitic clump of cells". Not only have you rejected all of science with this statement (EVERYONE knows that life a completely UNIQUE human life begins at conception) but you also undermine yourself with this. YOU (and I) were also a "parasitic clump of cells" before. Aren't you glad your mother didn't treat you as such? You were never an egg or a sperm, but you WERE, in fact, an embryo - a VERY young human life.
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@Snackbar47 An embryo is parasitic in the sense that it takes whatever nutrients it needs from the mother's body without any concern for the mother's body. That's what a parasite does - indiscriminately takes from its host.
The development of life begins at conception, but to say that *life* begins at conception is false. There are many things that can go wrong that can cause miscarriage. If a woman has a miscarriage, are you in favour of her being charged with manslaughter and put in jail?
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver Absolutely not! A woman does not purposefully cause a miscarriage in order to get rid of the baby. Women (oftentimes encouraged by selfish men) who choose to "abort" their children are doing so purposefully with the full intent of not giving the child life.
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@Snackbar47 So why are you calling abortion murder, yet miscarriage wouldn't be manslaughter? Manslaughter is the accidental killing of a person (ie. not premeditated). Miscarriage would fit that description.
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver Because there is no direct intention of killing the baby. It's basic ethics. If there is no direct intention to kill and it was just an accident, then there is no wrong. But if it is freely chosen, then there is complete culpability. It's like saying, "I accidentally ran over a person that I didn't see" or "I knew there was a person there and I purposefully chose to run over them". It's pretty simple.
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@Snackbar47 "Because there is no direct intention of killing the baby." Which would classify it as manslaughter rather than homicide. Manslaughter is homicide without any intention or forethought.
So again - why do you consider abortion murder but you don't consider miscarriage manslaughter? It just makes sense that if you're going to call abortion murder, then miscarriage (killing of an unborn child without premeditation) would be manslaughter.
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver Funny that you bring up manslaughter, because according to our current legal system people who have killed the life of a pregnant mother have not only been charged for the death of the mother, but also the unborn baby. Why would this be if the baby were not a real human life?
Your understanding of manslaughter is flawed. Manslaughter still involves SOME guilt, albeit less than intentional homicide. Miscarriage involves ZERO guilt.
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@Snackbar47 My understanding of manslaughter is not flawed. Look it up for yourself.
The fact that you refuse to consider miscarriage manslaughter completely discredits your whole "abortion is murder" argument.
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver Once miscarriage entered the debate & it was insinuated that a mother is responsible for her m/c (re: manslaughter def), I couldn't keep quiet. Having suffered 2 m/c's, I am well educated and well versed on the causes, the most common PROVEN ones including "chromosomal abnormalities, collagen vascular diseases, infections, and abnormal structural abnormality." In no way does the mother "accidentally kill" her baby; to say as much is inaccurate, not to mention, cruel.
mlhein25 11 months ago
@mlhein25 I wasn't saying that mothers should be charged with manslaughter for having a miscarriage. My point was that it makes no logical sense to call abortion murder if you're not also going to call miscarriage manslaughter.
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver The problem with this argument is that manslaughter involves responsibility, albeit of a lesser or diminished sort. But who is responsible for a miscarriage in the case of responsible mother who is doing everything "according to the book"? Surely not the mother who wishes for the baby to be born. Surely not the baby. It is due to something beyond their control, whereas manslaughter is a term that inherently recognizes responsibility to a certain, but real, degree.
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@Snackbar47 You're missing my point entirely.
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver EXAMPLE: Deliberately driving a car into someone and killing them is murder. Driving recklessly and accidentally killing someone is involuntary manslaughter. Or, after being cut off in traffic, pursuing someone and driving them off the road and into a wall might result in voluntary manslaughter. Having a tire blowout while driving, causing you to hit a pedestrian, is an accident due to the failure of equipment beyond the knowledge/control of the driver.
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@autumnsylver The first corresponds, of course, to murder. The latter, I think, corresponds to a miscarriage--unless, of course, the miscarriage was caused by an irresponsible action that was known to possibly cause a miscarriage, in which case it would correspond in some meaningful way to involuntary manslaughter.
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@Snackbar47 So, in some cases, you would approve of a woman being charged with manslaughter for having a miscarriage? How nice of you.
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver No - That is exactly what YOU were suggesting earlier. My entire point is that miscarriages are not (and should not) ever be considered manslaughter. Your flawed understanding of manslaughter (which I thoroughly explained already) continues to discredit every line of reasoning or argument that you give. When you finally come to terms with manslaughter as it should be properly understood I will begin to listen to you. But to keep pounding the same faulty argument is a waste of time.
Snackbar47 11 months ago
@Snackbar47 No, that's not what I was suggesting AT ALL. Like I said, you are completely missing my point. My point is that it's illogical to say that abortion is murder while miscarriage isn't manslaughter. Both, according to your logic, are killing a child, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Miscarriage is unintentional. Manslaughter is unintentional. So according to your "abortion is murder" logic, miscarriage should be considered manslaughter.
autumnsylver 11 months ago
@autumnsylver Snackbar47 has no faulty understanding of manslaughter & before you say it, neither do I; YOU are the one whose def. of manslaughter is faulty in that it changes to suit your needs. Manslaughter is not simply defined as "unintentional". Manslaughter IS responsibility for a death through negligence.
mlhein25 11 months ago
@mlhein25 You are a fucking bitch you know that?! I am DEEPLY OFFENDED by you comments on miscarriage or in your case "manslaughter". Miscarriage can be caused by anything and it does not necessarily mean negligence. My mother has tried MULTIPLE times to have a baby before me. 5 times actually. Each of them ended up being a miscarriage. AND IT WAS NOT DUE TO NEGLIGENCE! She tried her best to keep her babies alive but she couldn't, ok? So stop being closed minded and THINK before you say shit.
jennifercampos325 7 months ago