The pro-abortion, "women's right" movement, at it's root, had nothing to do with a "woman's right", but was in fact promoted to con the poor, particularly poor minorities, OUT of their right to have children. Direct continuity can be found between "family planning" organizations and the Nazi eugenics program. Behind this continuity are powerful international bureaucrats who believe themselves to be superior to YOU and do not wish for you to have the right to procreate. You are being conned.
"As a general rule, abortion in Judaism is permitted only if there is a direct threat to the life of the mother by carrying the fetus to term or through the act of childbirth. In such a circumstance, the baby is considered tantamount to a rodef, a pursuer after the mother with the intent to kill her." [aish(dot)com]
As long as America allows the murder of the unborn, God will hold America in contempt. God hears the cries of the babies murdered in abortion. He is sending America punishments. Floods. Skyrocketing food prices. Higher gas prices, Economic collapse, Our enemies rule over us (ever wonder why the Saudies control oil?) We elect fools to government. Who squander all the money they can get their hands on to bankrupt us. God is sending more and more severe weather.
1. i wasnt attacking the messager i was attacking the one that sent the message. god is a fascist.
2. attack the message, huh? god will bring untold destruction and misery to those who do not do as he commands. god also gave us free will. q.e.d god hates freewill.
@AceofDiamonds0 Yes you have freewill, you can accept Him or reject him, as you odviously are. But you must face the consiquences of your choices. Thus we have the blessings and curses of a Porvidencial God. Fearing Him is the beginning of wisdom.
if you have a friend that hits you everytime you say or do something he disagrees with, would you still be his friend? that is an accurate summation of god.
why would you willingly worship and love a being that you fear?
yes just like in a dictatorship you have a choice to do as the absolute ruler demands or die.
you dont make friends with fire and brimstone. god needs anger management.
in all seriousness though, if religion was like politics, which government system do you think it would be? one all powerful ruler making all the rules. and the followers of that religion dont have a say in the laws or rules and cannot change them. and everyone must obey.
get it yet? religion is a dictatorship, at best a monarchy.
@AceofDiamonds0 The form of civil government dosn't matter, it can be a monacrhy, dictatorship or a democacry. What dose matter it the integrity of the ruler,weather or not he's a king, a president, a prime minister or a dictator. What is needed is a King Soloman, Alfred the Great, or a George Washington. What is not needed is a Napolean, a Hitler, a Kadaffi, or Bill Clinton.
but you dont want people to make laws or decisions that are against the bible (like abortion or gay marriage)therefore you are against democracy, where the people get to decide the laws for themselves.
if you want to live in a theocracy move to uganda.
and no the type of civil government doesnt matter. in any type of government if you pass or veto laws based on the bible, it still is basicly a dictatorship. because god is a dictator.
@AceofDiamonds0 That is why the Founding Fathers' gave us a constituional repblic, not a democacry. Democacry is nothing more than mob rule.If you want to live like a hethen, go to Europe. Just give me back my consititonal repuublic, thank you.
@MrOne4truth "abortion is murder,God's law is above man's"
Numbers 5, if a woman is pregnant by a man other than her husband, then God will curse her to miscarry. According to your god, destroying the fetus works as punishment for the mother. Now who's the murderer?
@VolatileReaction it also says you should bury your underwear after the third day...do we do it? NO. You can't pick and choose parts of the Bible to suit your hypocrisy and bigotries. It also says in the New Testament that all things are passed away. MEANING...the Old Testament no longer applies. Then there is the "thou shall not judge", "Love one another as yourself" etc...
@callmeishmel Where does it say that all things are passed away? On the contrary:
Matthew 5:17-18 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
@VolatileReaction Many people know the scripture "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law". However, many people seem to not know the end of the scripture: "till all be fulfilled". And what did Jesus Christ say in the verse immediately preceding this verse? He said that He didn't come to destroy the law or the prophets, He came to fulfill.
@VolatileReaction The only question remaining is, "which law did Jesus fulfil?" The law that Jesus was born under, the law in effect when he was alive, is the Law of Moses - the Old Testament Law. This is the law that Jesus fulfilled and abolished.
Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
@VolatileReaction Again in 3:11, Paul wrote that the Old Testament is done away. In 3:13, Paul wrote that the Old Testament is abolished. When you are under the New Testament, then you receive the Spirit of the Lord, and you are free (3:17).
According to the New Testament we now live under "Grace" not "Mercy" (or Old Testament Law). If you try to live, or pick and choose Old Testament Law...you are judged by it since the covenant of Abraham by God has been fulfilled.
@callmeishmel He never wrote that the OT was abolished or even ignored, only that the Laws therein are not the path to salvation: that one must rely on faith, not works. This appears to contradict Matthew 5:17-20, which states that anyone who "sets aside these commandments will be called least in the kingdom of Heaven."
Anyway, whether or not the Law is applicable now, doesn't change the point of my post - that God murdered a fetus as punishment for the mother.
I guess a large amount of incest is rape, so it would be the same arguments. For the rest an abortion would be legitimate if the child has genetic defects. Gene therapy would be the better option but currently is not advanced enough.
Aside from that, if you not want the child, there is adoption.
@Rakaziel No one should be forced to bear a child, period. Just because a pregnancy is not life-threatening doesn't mean that it doesn't have a good chance of doing irreparable damage to the body. If a woman finds out she's pregnant and wants to give it up for adoption, then that's great and that's her choice. But I think forcing a woman to give birth against her will can be just as traumatizing as some of the incidents you mentioned.
@VolatileReaction As far as rape is concered, there is a good chance the woman will commit suicide if you not let her abort - or she will try to do it herself, so you can as well do it with medical hygiene. Even if the doesn't there is a big chance she will hate her child and have greater difficulties to recover from the trauma with that constant reminder. Which again increases the chances for suicide or infanticide. Or a psychologically ruined person when the child grows up. Better off dead.
Abortion must remain legal-----women should have autonomy over their own bodies and reproductive rights------if you are truly concerned about abortions happening then please support conctraception/birth control and an honest and responsible sexual education for our young folk, and try to enforce the idea that abortion is not a pleasant experience nor is teenage pregnancy
@metalreign81 LMFAO. Here is another bitch who can't keep her pants up. Don't want a baby? Don't have sex you slut. Abortion kills 15 million white babies per year. There is adoption, you know!
@metalreign81 I agree with you, but what about those cases of rape where the woman has no say-so on the pregnancy and then on top of that when the pregnancy is a threat on the woman's life. To me, that makes it imperative that this so-called bill does not pass.
What kind of crazy, evil psychopath would put the life of a dumb little fetus before the life of an ALREADY BORN HUMAN BEING? You have to be really, really, REALLY sick to pass a law like this! O_O
Don't get me wrong, I think abortions should be ok in cases of incest, rape or when the mother's life is in danger, but I don't believe they should be ok for no good reason. No one should get to choose whether or not another innocent person dies, even if it is a baby.
so much for the separation of church and state.These religious nuts don't realize that by allowing the woman to die is to allow the baby to die.This is why religion must be banned,at least the christian religion.
I had a friend who had to have an abortion or she would have died. Just thinking what could have happened to her if this was in place is disgusting. The baby was not old enough to live if she had died. ...
@MrOne4truth just so you know, it's pretty obvious that you're pushing people away from the church by preaching to them. here are a few tips for you:
advertise? yes.
set a positive example for others to follow? yes!
preach to people who don't want to listen? NO!!!
forcing your beliefs onto others only serves to annoy them. if they don't share your beliefs then talking down to them certainly won't convince them to, and if they do then you're rude for assuming they didn't in the first place.
@Briena1982 dude bro seriously get a grip. I did go back and read all the comments and guess what his comment wasn't there. It is quite possible a mistake was made. I have made several comments on pages and than suddenly not be there because you tube removes comments, however you are still childish and quite frankly the biggest hypocrite on this thread. You are fail at grammar and typing because all you do is drop the f bomb and talk in caps.
@Briena1982 I am the fucking moron yet you keep replying to me. What does that make you? As to trolling your page well I was merely pointing out your hypocrisy. I don't think you can handle anyone who has a different opinion than you. I know in reading the comments that you are hardly capable of conversing without cussing and in general being a hateful person. You have a cool picture on your page you really do ruin it with that god awe full pink crap on it. As to blocking me go ahead coward.
you do realize the 14th amendment is the biggest reason you have abortion rights. I am sure your a constitutional genius and knew that. I am just finding it funny that were abusing amendments that technically never had anything to do with abortion rights.
@ThePoliticalFreak No... Conservatives are just the ones completely VIOLATING the 1st and 14th amendments by shoving their religious crap down everyone else's throats and treating entire groups of people as second class citizens removing their rights and privileges thinking that you can actually VOTE on someones rights ... so hows about IF YOU DON'T LIKE OUR CONSTITUTION YOU GTFO!
@Briena1982 Lol you mad bro? You are the one talking in all caps and saying nothing of substance. I asked you a simple question over statistics, and you got butt hurt. I will respond to anyone I want to in this thread. Since you didn't answer my question I am gonna assume you can't.
I'm Atheist. I tend to have a problem with Religious people who spew religious dogma and miss the spiritual. I believe that you are a spiritual person, and just want to help others. I respect that :)
@xangelsxorxnot You are right. My point was some impoverished women think that marriage, religious piety, men's higher wages and the love of a child will break the cycle of depression and poverty. This is why many states have Safe Haven laws. I do not think we need laws to deny access to reproductive services. Between pharmaceutical & homeopathic birth control and plan B the only thing missing is women insisting their male partners respect their Choice.
Everyone thought Jim Bunning was hitting a new low when he pushed for no more benefits for the unemployed at a time when the unemployed needed them the most, and yet by the end of 2010 every republican had jumped on the bandwagon. How do we know that the same thing won't happen here?
@TheDakota671 yes i have noticed that the primary goal of the republicans are to take away your individual rights while claiming they are in favor of individual rights. that is how they brainwash their audience. they tell you one thing then they do something totally opposite.
@cannabisbisbisbisbis yes but you see it's ok because those are the rights of those "other people" (gays , blacks, immigrants women) so they don't count.
The republicans figure that they are in the majority so their rights will never be taken away.
@ninetysevenecho I think my situation was helped by the fact that I was knocked out by date rape drugs, so I don't remember the actual event itself,only waking up afterwards naked in a park with my clothes strewn over me. I have no idea who raped me. I don't have to look at my daughter's face and remember his face. Thus, I can't blame the women who were conscious during the rape. I just personally chose a different choice.
@ninetysevenecho let me guess, you're one of the jackasses who would turn the dying women away, right? And as for the rape situation, I am morally against killing babies, but I cannot judge those who do decide to get abortions. In my rape situation, I decided to have the child because I couldn't morally kill her. I had planned to give her up for adoption. But as soon as I gave birth to her and held her in my arms, I couldn't.
erm? are they serious, if she has the abortion, the baby dies and she lives. if she doesn't have the abort, both the baby and her will die. how is that preferable?
I am a religious person. I dont believe in abortion as long as its not life threatening to the mother. However, its inconceivable that a "first world country" like the U.S could pass something like this. Even where I come from, where abortion is illegal, docs are authorized to abort the baby if the mother's life is in danger. By jeopardizing the mother, aren't they risking her life from EVER having a child again?
I just like what he had to say about the Democrats and how their refusal to hold strong to their ideology causes Republicans to push through any legislation they desire, as outrageous as it may be.
the thing that disgusts me is that they wont remove a fetus with no brain cells but they will tie up a baby cow and restain it for the 3 weeks while its forcefed milk untill is slaughtered. fuck people fuck god fuck you
"Protect life act" is not necessarily a "sustain life act". There is a crucial difference between actively killing someone(a typical conservative perspective) and leaving someone to die of "natural" occurrences. These two are not the same and should not be conflated. Tyt is oversimplifying and distorting overly convoluted ethical content of this matter to their favor. Is killing a life acceptable provided another life is saved? If advocates for this act say no, then they are being consistent.
@idontgiveashit0930 Leaving someone to die of natural occurances?If we follow that train of thought hospitals shouldn't tend to anyone.Burst appendix, brain hemorrhaging, heart attack sufferers shouldn't be treated for their illnesses are ''natural occurances''.And on the other hand, if a 4 months old fetus is threatening the life of the mother it must be aborted, otherwise both the lives of the mother and the fetus will be lost.It's as simple as that.
@miellikkiful You make a good point, and I agree. But are you willing to limit abortions to only rape, incest, and life situations? because right now, all 3 combines don't even total 1% of abortions.
@bluefootedpig Oh, of course not.I was just referring to circumstances when abortion becomes a necessity due to poor health.I'm not sure of the time limit in the States, in Britain it's 24 weeks (which I find too long), in Turkey it's 10 weeks because if I'm not mistaken the nervous systems of the fetus starts forming in the 8th week.Anyway, I'm for abortion as a choice.My view is; if it's a ''choice'' there must be a time limit, if it's a threat to health, time is irrevelant.
@miellikkiful You are a breath of fresh air. Maybe I only say that because you share similar beliefs, but yes! if life and death are on the line, time is irrelevent. In the states, it is depending on the state, but it is very similar, I believe after 24 weeks, you need a doctor to perform the abortion. Before that, you can bascially get it for any reason. I believe like 3 states are very liberal in late term abortions.
@Briena1982 The first section of this, granting the ex-slaves citizenship, was used to justify abortion on demand in the United States. The dissenting opinion had the following comment on the majority’s justification:
@flynlizard "The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invents that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes." In other words, seven federal justices simply decided that they wanted to make abortion legal and then did it.
@Briena1982 and for the record I doubt you have read all responses to this video and in no way could prove to me otherwise so your statement is a bit silly. I understand roe vs wade was a change made to the constitution, however were you and are going to argue is how the constitution was defined at the time it was made.
@Briena1982 No you are incapable of providing a response without attacking me personally. Something I would expect a child to do thanks for providing any reasonable response to me. Now I know not to take you seriously.
If she's at the point where she's going to die unless the fetus is removed something tells me that live birth is out of the question, if she dies it dies no matter what.
Did anyone actually read the bill? First this bill is from April 22, 2010. Please read the bill and post where it says anything they are talking about. The only people who will be in trouble are women who want abortions and can't pay for them. That's it. Any woman at risk is EXCEPTED from HR 5111 and all health care professions are not required TO perform nor are they restricted FROM performing abortions!
@MyOwnOpinons The only people who will be in trouble are women who want abortions and can't pay for them? All health care professions are not required to perform abortions?
@ajr5086 Are you joking or being honest? I have been Pro-Choice for over 20 years. That said, I do not believe that abortion is "birth control". I also do not think the public should have to pay for someone's 'choice' According to the bills I have read, no health care professionals will be REQUIRED to perform or shall they be PREVENTED from performing abortions. Allow the private sector to support people who wish to have an abortion and cannot pay. Ever heard of Planned Parenthood?
@MyOwnOpinons So many Pro-choice groups have been fighting for more accessible abortion option for years, including a public payment plan. If you were to grained down decision of for non-emergency abortion to simply a vain birth control method, it brushes away the true sense of "choice". Your throwing away the non-emergency option without considering all the angles, like how impoverished women have no other choice than bring a baby in a world where they can't be clothed or feed.
@ajr5086 Pro-Choice groups who want to increase access to abortions should remember Margaret Sanger's struggles and teach more effective birth control. Impoverished women need to hear that the lure of marriage, the higher wages of males and the love of a child will not break the poverty cycle. This nation spent $26B on Apple products over the last 90 days. Planned Parenthood's YEARLY budget is $100M. "White Guilt" is not having the means, the will or desire to sacrifice your 'birth' status.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure if i quite understood what you were saying or not. could you please clear some things up for me? Are you saying that all women should get married and men should get paid more? I'm hoping thats not what you're saying, but idk. I'm kind of out of it today. I would really appreciate it if you could reword this for me. thanks
@xangelsxorxnot I had to read it couple of times to understand it, myself. It was directed at me, so I hope that I understood!
He's talking about misguided reasons for impoverished women to get pregnant, I believe. As such, he's referencing a more psychological birth control, which I do support with Planned Parenthood policies in most part. @MyOwnOpinons If I'm wrong about what I said, you definitely need to reword your comment! ; )
@ajr5086 I think I agree @MyOwnOpinons in one point: abortion is not birth-control. And I don't even care about religious or ethical bullshit. The thing is condoms and pills are way cheaper, and much less dangerous to everybody. Subside pills and sexual education for poor women. Not abortions.
That said, I must agree with you that this have NOTHING to do with this bill. This bill is affecting emergency abortion. EMERGENCY abortion. Nobody uses EMERGENCY abortion as means of birth control.
@rafaelcalsaverini What I read in the bill does say that health providers don't have to grain access to abortions as well as protect those professionals who choice not to preform. I don't have a real problem with people's dislike of non-emergency abortions, I would actually like to see an reduction through better education and improvements in anti-conception methods. What I don't want to see is these larger entities of the government or society dictating what is good and bad in the abortionissue
@ajr5086 You are of course assuming adoption isn't an option. As you said, removing non-emergyency options, but there is still adoption. And with 500k people on a waiting list for new borns, it isn't like that resource is even marginally tapped. In fact, as studies have shown at planned parenting, they are to recommend abortion over adoption, sometimes even ommiting that it is an option unless brought up.
@bluefootedpig Not to make it a number game, but your 500k won't cover the nearly 900,000 teen pregnancies by themselves. There's just not enough people, though I'd love to see more and more people adopt across the field at all ages. Hey you can start by adopting me!
Conception preventions and adoptions are some of the best solutions to the abortion rates because it's a real second option to abortion. I'm pro-choice and I want there to be more choices for impregnated women...for everyone really
@ajr5086 True, we do have a lot. But I imagine that the 500k will increase significantly if we started to use it. With how long the wait list is, many people go around and buy the child, to avoid the wait list. Then there are those that just have their own kids instead of waiting 5 years. So I could easily see that number read abortion rates.
But agree, second options are best, and we need to promote them highest. Saddens me that PP doesn't promote it.
@bluefootedpig Some might say that we don't need abortion because there is adoption and orphanages. To me, that's like saying that we can completely stop using fossil fuels because there's bio-fuels and solar panels available. You don't strike me as someone who go so far, bluefootedpig.
It's going to take years, probably decades, until anyone can really say that abortion isn't necessary. And even then, I wouldn't stand for it to be denied to people.
@ajr5086 You are right, it is going to take a long time, but the key point is to educate now, and to use the resources that we have now. We could even significant help our over population problem through adoption rather than having a child. But we would need to heavily promote it. Right now PP is not promoting adoption as a solution, and even in sex education adoption is not really covered meanwhile safe sex and abortions are taught.
I'm confused. Of all the abortions to attack, why would it be emergency abortions. I'm pro-choice, but I understand there are some people with ethical or religious issues. But I didn't think ANYBODY could be anti-abortion where the mother's life is at risk.
Furthermore, I'm a nurse in Australia, and our law is completely different in Australia. We (health professionals) are forbidden, under law, of using our personal opinions (religion) in treating someone.
@bersaba only radical extremists are against life / death abortions. But what people are against is that rape, incest, and life together add up to less than 1% of abortions in America. That means that 990k abortions are for other reasons, while only 10k or so are for those 3 reasons. That is what people are against,
And I can understand (though I disagree) but can understand people objecting to those cases. My point was I can't understand anyone objecting to life at risk abortions, which is what this bill was addressing.
I'm pro-life in most cases, but this is just ridiculous. It's absolutely insane. If a woman's life is in danger, of course she should be allowed to have an abortion! The same applies in cases of rape. I just don't think women should be allowed to kill a baby just because they fucked up and didn't plan on getting pregnant. If you don't want the baby, give it up for adoption.
I'm not going to attack you for your stance (I'm pro choice) but I want to give you the reasons why I'm pro-choice, perhaps as something you can consider. A person that has 'made a mistake', without physical health issues, may have other issues. For instance, her life may be effected in a severe way. Even before adoption, she'll have large expenses, her job or school might be effected. She might be tempted to get a backyard abortion. Her emotional wellbeing might be at risk, and so on.
In an ideal world I wish abortions weren't needed. But I doubt that any woman would choose abortion lightly. It's an extreme measure and, the fact they're getting an abortion leads me to believe they probably need one, for the their own health and wellbeing.
@bersaba "pro-choice" doesn't include the use of abortion as a form of birth control; even cenk and ana have voiced their opinions against that ignorant attitude. it means wanting to retain the option of abortion as a last resort. "last resort", of course, having to do with things like terminal birth defects, likeliness of a miscarriage, etc., that will lead to significant health problems for the mother. it has NOTHING to do with your minor inconvenience of having to take online classes instead.
@VirtualBilly for me the foremost reason to be pro-abortion as a choice of the woman, and the woman only, is public health. The fact is that many women will get it anyway, being it legal or not. So, it's better to have millions of stupid teenagers doing their abortions in certified clinics than on illegal facilities where they could die.
That said, I believe there should be a big discouragement of this route, massive investment in real sex ed, and subsides to safe means of birth controls.
@grahamkeithtodd "some" Americans are fucking dumb! wtf is up with these people? I think we just care more for peoples individuality and well being. PEG CITY!!
Even Sarah Palin would oppose this...I have to believe that republicans wouldn't be so insane as to vote for this...I just have to believe that they wouldn't.
Hospitals are not going to let women die in the streets. Someone is trying to frighten you. In the U.S., there are rarely any circumstances where a woman would DIE if she didn't get an abortion on demand. This bill is about correcting Obamacare - which would direct tax payer money to provide on-demand abortions. A large portion of the country is NOT OK with their taxes being used for something they feel is wrong. But, if Obamacare is voided as unconstitutional, there wouldn't be a need for this.
@MrPinksBane an Ectopic pregnancy is a circumstance in which a women would require an abortion on demand, and they aren't really that rare at all. This bill, like your comment, is based in ignorance.
@iscreamzombie Ectopic pregnancy is regularly handled in Catholic Hospitals - there is no problem with the Church on this issue (it is you who have been given incorrect info). The Church is against abortion for the sake of ending the child's life. With ectopic pregnancy, the problem portion of the tube is removed to save the mother's life in emergency circumstances (this ends the child's life because we do not have the technology to transfer the baby to the womb - not because of intent to kill)
Reminds me of the movie Absolute Strangers. It was based on a true story where a woman was in a coma and pregnant. The family wanted her to get an abortion because there was complications that could kill her. The husband had to fight all the way to the supreme court against neocons and the religious right. He finally won and the woman in the coma got the abortion. When she woke up from the coma she understood. They won, and this is new bill is going to fail.
@ncp9one how would I be anti-women if I am a woman? I'm not anti-women, I'm anti-murder. though I do agree that women should be allowed to abort in cases of rape or medical emergencies.
Hospitals in the US don't make money off of abortions, they make scads of money off of prenatal care for high risk pregnancies though. Think about it.
I can keep going with this if you want briena1982 but if your not going to provide logical discourse as your page suggest than I will be happy not to keep casting my pearls before swine.
Republican mindset: protect the babies, don't kill the child it's murder. However, if that child grows up to be a liberal, or an illegal immigrant, or lazy, or a welfare recipient, fuck 'em, they need to be shot or kicked out of the country.
@WrathOfNolla Granted I agree with you, i think the logic though is that with abortion, the baby has no choice. Being liberal, illegal immigrant, or lazy, is a choice of the person. It isn't like me choosing to cross the US border will somehow cause another human to die. Imagine if every person that crossed the US border illegally caused 1 death. How long before we would stop illegal immigration?
"if every person that crossed the US border illegally caused 1 death. How long before we would stop illegal immigration? " The same rate you would stop smoking, drinking, traffic or junk food?
@wimscheers People tend to care more when it involves someone else. If illegal immigrants caused someone else to die everytime, we would stop it asap. Smoking, drinking, traffic, junk food, those all can be avoided or are personal, they only affect you. Abortion, which means to prevent an outcome, must prevent something... a baby from being born. So abortions are stopping a baby from being born. Again, if illegal immigrants corssing the border killed one random person each, we wouldn't allow it.
"if illegal immigrants corssing the border killed one random person each, we wouldn't allow it." I'll be honest here, the abortion debate is complicated. Pragmatism meets morality, realism meats utopianism, in the end it’s one fucked up mess we’ll all drown in if we try to stand on a zero tolerance principle. It’s a grey zone, and I’d rather have women not being poked with rusty Clothes hangers in some rat infested alley, nor do I like the current abortion rate in New York.
@wimscheers I agree, it is a very grey area. That is why I am fine with the 3 big ones, rape, incest, and life. But seeing as that is only 1%, I would be happy with that. Everything you do in life has conseq
This has been flagged as spam show
you dumbasss fucking turksss. go suckk your fuckingg smalll ass dick. nooone likes you you fucking asssholee. i haaatee you.
LoveNothingGross 4 months ago
Please follow up.
TeapotMullah 4 months ago in playlist Politics (Laws)
The pro-abortion, "women's right" movement, at it's root, had nothing to do with a "woman's right", but was in fact promoted to con the poor, particularly poor minorities, OUT of their right to have children. Direct continuity can be found between "family planning" organizations and the Nazi eugenics program. Behind this continuity are powerful international bureaucrats who believe themselves to be superior to YOU and do not wish for you to have the right to procreate. You are being conned.
manosmodularsystems 7 months ago
"As a general rule, abortion in Judaism is permitted only if there is a direct threat to the life of the mother by carrying the fetus to term or through the act of childbirth. In such a circumstance, the baby is considered tantamount to a rodef, a pursuer after the mother with the intent to kill her." [aish(dot)com]
Christianity gets its laws from Judaism.
BrandonSchleifer 7 months ago
logic?? no no no my friend this republicans we are talking about...... they dont know the such a thing exists =l
snak3145 7 months ago
Wouldn't the baby die if the woman died anyway? Totally impractical.
Hanzy123 10 months ago 13
Should I get the guillotine out now? No? Ok we'll let them kill us first.
xXpimpleXx 10 months ago
@Hughganaut there is more rapes in the USA than any other country !! Europe is not more heathen than USA !! Pro-choice people , vote pro-choice
mskittyz100 11 months ago
As long as America allows the murder of the unborn, God will hold America in contempt. God hears the cries of the babies murdered in abortion. He is sending America punishments. Floods. Skyrocketing food prices. Higher gas prices, Economic collapse, Our enemies rule over us (ever wonder why the Saudies control oil?) We elect fools to government. Who squander all the money they can get their hands on to bankrupt us. God is sending more and more severe weather.
Hughganaught 1 year ago
@Hughganaught fascist.
AceofDiamonds0 11 months ago
@AceofDiamonds0 You can't address the message, so you attack the messenger. Typical.
Hughganaught 11 months ago
@Hughganaught
1. i wasnt attacking the messager i was attacking the one that sent the message. god is a fascist.
2. attack the message, huh? god will bring untold destruction and misery to those who do not do as he commands. god also gave us free will. q.e.d god hates freewill.
AceofDiamonds0 11 months ago
@AceofDiamonds0 Yes you have freewill, you can accept Him or reject him, as you odviously are. But you must face the consiquences of your choices. Thus we have the blessings and curses of a Porvidencial God. Fearing Him is the beginning of wisdom.
Hughganaught 11 months ago
@Hughganaught
if you have a friend that hits you everytime you say or do something he disagrees with, would you still be his friend? that is an accurate summation of god.
why would you willingly worship and love a being that you fear?
yes just like in a dictatorship you have a choice to do as the absolute ruler demands or die.
AceofDiamonds0 11 months ago
@AceofDiamonds0 Fear He that can put into eternal damnation of hell for ever and ever.
Hughganaught 11 months ago
@Hughganaught
you dont make friends with fire and brimstone. god needs anger management.
in all seriousness though, if religion was like politics, which government system do you think it would be? one all powerful ruler making all the rules. and the followers of that religion dont have a say in the laws or rules and cannot change them. and everyone must obey.
get it yet? religion is a dictatorship, at best a monarchy.
AceofDiamonds0 11 months ago
@AceofDiamonds0 The form of civil government dosn't matter, it can be a monacrhy, dictatorship or a democacry. What dose matter it the integrity of the ruler,weather or not he's a king, a president, a prime minister or a dictator. What is needed is a King Soloman, Alfred the Great, or a George Washington. What is not needed is a Napolean, a Hitler, a Kadaffi, or Bill Clinton.
Hughganaught 11 months ago
@Hughganaught
but you dont want people to make laws or decisions that are against the bible (like abortion or gay marriage)therefore you are against democracy, where the people get to decide the laws for themselves.
if you want to live in a theocracy move to uganda.
and no the type of civil government doesnt matter. in any type of government if you pass or veto laws based on the bible, it still is basicly a dictatorship. because god is a dictator.
AceofDiamonds0 11 months ago
@AceofDiamonds0 That is why the Founding Fathers' gave us a constituional repblic, not a democacry. Democacry is nothing more than mob rule.If you want to live like a hethen, go to Europe. Just give me back my consititonal repuublic, thank you.
Hughganaught 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hughganaught
"If you want to live like a hethen, go to Europe."
You may not know this in your little bubble but Europeans use Youtube too. Hello, I'm British and not hethen. You are a goon.
purplesnails22 8 months ago
@MrOne4truth "abortion is murder,God's law is above man's"
Numbers 5, if a woman is pregnant by a man other than her husband, then God will curse her to miscarry. According to your god, destroying the fetus works as punishment for the mother. Now who's the murderer?
VolatileReaction 1 year ago 8
@VolatileReaction it also says you should bury your underwear after the third day...do we do it? NO. You can't pick and choose parts of the Bible to suit your hypocrisy and bigotries. It also says in the New Testament that all things are passed away. MEANING...the Old Testament no longer applies. Then there is the "thou shall not judge", "Love one another as yourself" etc...
callmeishmel 6 months ago
@callmeishmel Where does it say that all things are passed away? On the contrary:
Matthew 5:17-18 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
Luke 16:7-8 says the same thing.
VolatileReaction 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VolatileReaction Many people know the scripture "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law". However, many people seem to not know the end of the scripture: "till all be fulfilled". And what did Jesus Christ say in the verse immediately preceding this verse? He said that He didn't come to destroy the law or the prophets, He came to fulfill.
callmeishmel 6 months ago
@callmeishmel There appear to be two conditions to the fulfillment of the Law:
1. It will not occur until Heaven and Earth have passed/disappeared. This has not happened.
2. It will be fulfilled by Jesus. Note that nowhere does he state that he will fulfill it in his first lifetime.
Romans is again showing preference to faith over works, but that doesn't mean that the Law has no power whatsoever, as stated in Matthew 5:19-20.
VolatileReaction 6 months ago
@VolatileReaction You can never bring to light to the self righteous ordained blind.
callmeishmel 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@callmeishmel So in other words, you have no argument. Duly noted.
VolatileReaction 6 months ago
@VolatileReaction The only question remaining is, "which law did Jesus fulfil?" The law that Jesus was born under, the law in effect when he was alive, is the Law of Moses - the Old Testament Law. This is the law that Jesus fulfilled and abolished.
Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
callmeishmel 6 months ago
@VolatileReaction Again in 3:11, Paul wrote that the Old Testament is done away. In 3:13, Paul wrote that the Old Testament is abolished. When you are under the New Testament, then you receive the Spirit of the Lord, and you are free (3:17).
According to the New Testament we now live under "Grace" not "Mercy" (or Old Testament Law). If you try to live, or pick and choose Old Testament Law...you are judged by it since the covenant of Abraham by God has been fulfilled.
callmeishmel 6 months ago
@callmeishmel He never wrote that the OT was abolished or even ignored, only that the Laws therein are not the path to salvation: that one must rely on faith, not works. This appears to contradict Matthew 5:17-20, which states that anyone who "sets aside these commandments will be called least in the kingdom of Heaven."
Anyway, whether or not the Law is applicable now, doesn't change the point of my post - that God murdered a fetus as punishment for the mother.
VolatileReaction 6 months ago
I guess a large amount of incest is rape, so it would be the same arguments. For the rest an abortion would be legitimate if the child has genetic defects. Gene therapy would be the better option but currently is not advanced enough.
Aside from that, if you not want the child, there is adoption.
Rakaziel 1 year ago
@Rakaziel No one should be forced to bear a child, period. Just because a pregnancy is not life-threatening doesn't mean that it doesn't have a good chance of doing irreparable damage to the body. If a woman finds out she's pregnant and wants to give it up for adoption, then that's great and that's her choice. But I think forcing a woman to give birth against her will can be just as traumatizing as some of the incidents you mentioned.
VolatileReaction 1 year ago
@ScrewFoxNews That is pure gold.
Rakaziel 1 year ago
@VolatileReaction As far as rape is concered, there is a good chance the woman will commit suicide if you not let her abort - or she will try to do it herself, so you can as well do it with medical hygiene. Even if the doesn't there is a big chance she will hate her child and have greater difficulties to recover from the trauma with that constant reminder. Which again increases the chances for suicide or infanticide. Or a psychologically ruined person when the child grows up. Better off dead.
Rakaziel 1 year ago
Abortion must remain legal-----women should have autonomy over their own bodies and reproductive rights------if you are truly concerned about abortions happening then please support conctraception/birth control and an honest and responsible sexual education for our young folk, and try to enforce the idea that abortion is not a pleasant experience nor is teenage pregnancy
don't support unplanned parenthood
metalreign81 1 year ago 2
@metalreign81 LMFAO. Here is another bitch who can't keep her pants up. Don't want a baby? Don't have sex you slut. Abortion kills 15 million white babies per year. There is adoption, you know!
wwefanworld 1 year ago
@wwefanworld "Don't want a baby? Don't have sex you slut."
So if a woman only wants to have one child, then she can only have sex once in her lifetime? Flawless logic.
VolatileReaction 1 year ago 3
@metalreign81 I agree with you, but what about those cases of rape where the woman has no say-so on the pregnancy and then on top of that when the pregnancy is a threat on the woman's life. To me, that makes it imperative that this so-called bill does not pass.
jpr422 1 year ago
Go to: Her Name is Ms Ann. Then: Larry Sinclair. Then: Rev. James Manning. Turks and muslims love each other! Specially the faggots.
Petekiv 1 year ago
I heard once that if men were ever able to become pegnant there would never be any more babies born.
jpr422 1 year ago
What kind of crazy, evil psychopath would put the life of a dumb little fetus before the life of an ALREADY BORN HUMAN BEING? You have to be really, really, REALLY sick to pass a law like this! O_O
Don't get me wrong, I think abortions should be ok in cases of incest, rape or when the mother's life is in danger, but I don't believe they should be ok for no good reason. No one should get to choose whether or not another innocent person dies, even if it is a baby.
ashantifan1224 1 year ago
Thank you
Bendigo6000 1 year ago
so much for the separation of church and state.These religious nuts don't realize that by allowing the woman to die is to allow the baby to die.This is why religion must be banned,at least the christian religion.
ranchai100 1 year ago
I had a friend who had to have an abortion or she would have died. Just thinking what could have happened to her if this was in place is disgusting. The baby was not old enough to live if she had died. ...
VioletMoonFire 1 year ago
@MrOne4truth just so you know, it's pretty obvious that you're pushing people away from the church by preaching to them. here are a few tips for you:
advertise? yes.
set a positive example for others to follow? yes!
preach to people who don't want to listen? NO!!!
forcing your beliefs onto others only serves to annoy them. if they don't share your beliefs then talking down to them certainly won't convince them to, and if they do then you're rude for assuming they didn't in the first place.
VirtualBilly 1 year ago
Comment removed
Briena1982 1 year ago
@Briena1982 dude bro seriously get a grip. I did go back and read all the comments and guess what his comment wasn't there. It is quite possible a mistake was made. I have made several comments on pages and than suddenly not be there because you tube removes comments, however you are still childish and quite frankly the biggest hypocrite on this thread. You are fail at grammar and typing because all you do is drop the f bomb and talk in caps.
flynlizard 1 year ago
@Briena1982 I am the fucking moron yet you keep replying to me. What does that make you? As to trolling your page well I was merely pointing out your hypocrisy. I don't think you can handle anyone who has a different opinion than you. I know in reading the comments that you are hardly capable of conversing without cussing and in general being a hateful person. You have a cool picture on your page you really do ruin it with that god awe full pink crap on it. As to blocking me go ahead coward.
flynlizard 1 year ago
@MrOne4truth rape and incest ring any bells in your tiny mind old son?
grahamkeithtodd 1 year ago
@grahamkeithtodd -your not worth my time
MrOne4truth 1 year ago
@TigerIPanzer You shouldn't believe every crazy urban legend you hear.
PriscillaRelentless 1 year ago
you do realize the 14th amendment is the biggest reason you have abortion rights. I am sure your a constitutional genius and knew that. I am just finding it funny that were abusing amendments that technically never had anything to do with abortion rights.
flynlizard 1 year ago
Comment removed
flynlizard 1 year ago
Comment removed
flynlizard 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
#
@ThePoliticalFreak No... Conservatives are just the ones completely VIOLATING the 1st and 14th amendments by shoving their religious crap down everyone else's throats and treating entire groups of people as second class citizens removing their rights and privileges thinking that you can actually VOTE on someones rights ... so hows about IF YOU DON'T LIKE OUR CONSTITUTION YOU GTFO!
Briena1982 3 days ago
Briena1982 3 days ago
flynlizard 1 year ago
Comment removed
flynlizard 1 year ago
@Briena1982 Lol you mad bro? You are the one talking in all caps and saying nothing of substance. I asked you a simple question over statistics, and you got butt hurt. I will respond to anyone I want to in this thread. Since you didn't answer my question I am gonna assume you can't.
flynlizard 1 year ago
Comment removed
flynlizard 1 year ago
Oh I see! It's the Hypocritical Oath, NOT the Hippocratic Oath :)
:P
Joxman2k 1 year ago
@Briena1982 he is your God too,a very loving God,and he will forgive you if you ask,most every human know's it is wrong to murder
MrOne4truth 1 year ago
@MrOne4truth
I'm Atheist. I tend to have a problem with Religious people who spew religious dogma and miss the spiritual. I believe that you are a spiritual person, and just want to help others. I respect that :)
:P
Joxman2k 1 year ago
Comment removed
Briena1982 1 year ago
Comment removed
Briena1982 1 year ago
Double standard. Plain and simple. Verging on misogynist dogma.
liveecarbme 1 year ago
@xangelsxorxnot You are right. My point was some impoverished women think that marriage, religious piety, men's higher wages and the love of a child will break the cycle of depression and poverty. This is why many states have Safe Haven laws. I do not think we need laws to deny access to reproductive services. Between pharmaceutical & homeopathic birth control and plan B the only thing missing is women insisting their male partners respect their Choice.
MyOwnOpinons 1 year ago
@MyOwnOpinons
ok. i see what your saying.
xangelsxorxnot 1 year ago
New Rule: I don't want anymore talk about life and death choices concerning pregnancy coming from men in office.
radargab 1 year ago
Is it really news to anybody that these people are hypocrites?
ArielDarkBlade69 1 year ago
@ArielDarkBlade69 Of course not, but don't tell that to idiots who support them.
Stingerbillion 1 year ago
That 'Protect Life Act' is against the Hyppocrativ Oath, the should-be basis of all things any doctor does.
Bevcrusherfan 1 year ago
*What? Republican congressmen trying to pass illogical, counterproductive, religious driven, and intellectually questionable policy?
*GTFO!!
*=may contain hints of sarcasm
OtakuRebel 1 year ago
Everyone thought Jim Bunning was hitting a new low when he pushed for no more benefits for the unemployed at a time when the unemployed needed them the most, and yet by the end of 2010 every republican had jumped on the bandwagon. How do we know that the same thing won't happen here?
jpr422 1 year ago
Have you ever noticed that the people who claim to be in favor of individual rights the most usually want to take them away?
TheDakota671 1 year ago
@TheDakota671 yes i have noticed that the primary goal of the republicans are to take away your individual rights while claiming they are in favor of individual rights. that is how they brainwash their audience. they tell you one thing then they do something totally opposite.
cannabisbisbisbisbis 1 year ago
@cannabisbisbisbisbis yes but you see it's ok because those are the rights of those "other people" (gays , blacks, immigrants women) so they don't count.
The republicans figure that they are in the majority so their rights will never be taken away.
booley 1 year ago
you can't understand republicans by using logic, because they don't use logic.
cannabisbisbisbisbis 1 year ago
@ninetysevenecho I think my situation was helped by the fact that I was knocked out by date rape drugs, so I don't remember the actual event itself,only waking up afterwards naked in a park with my clothes strewn over me. I have no idea who raped me. I don't have to look at my daughter's face and remember his face. Thus, I can't blame the women who were conscious during the rape. I just personally chose a different choice.
LMA629 1 year ago
@ninetysevenecho let me guess, you're one of the jackasses who would turn the dying women away, right? And as for the rape situation, I am morally against killing babies, but I cannot judge those who do decide to get abortions. In my rape situation, I decided to have the child because I couldn't morally kill her. I had planned to give her up for adoption. But as soon as I gave birth to her and held her in my arms, I couldn't.
LMA629 1 year ago
erm? are they serious, if she has the abortion, the baby dies and she lives. if she doesn't have the abort, both the baby and her will die. how is that preferable?
ifellinlovewithadead 1 year ago
@ifellinlovewithadead because the republicans feel that 2 deaths is pro life, while saving 1 life is not pro life.
cannabisbisbisbisbis 1 year ago
mind crushing
N4King 1 year ago
that stupid , religion don't say that
trinbr 1 year ago
I am a religious person. I dont believe in abortion as long as its not life threatening to the mother. However, its inconceivable that a "first world country" like the U.S could pass something like this. Even where I come from, where abortion is illegal, docs are authorized to abort the baby if the mother's life is in danger. By jeopardizing the mother, aren't they risking her life from EVER having a child again?
3dcga 1 year ago
And America gains more freedom, to let women die.
Mythosician06 1 year ago
I just like what he had to say about the Democrats and how their refusal to hold strong to their ideology causes Republicans to push through any legislation they desire, as outrageous as it may be.
810connie 1 year ago
the thing that disgusts me is that they wont remove a fetus with no brain cells but they will tie up a baby cow and restain it for the 3 weeks while its forcefed milk untill is slaughtered. fuck people fuck god fuck you
MrVeganGuy 1 year ago
"Protect life act" is not necessarily a "sustain life act". There is a crucial difference between actively killing someone(a typical conservative perspective) and leaving someone to die of "natural" occurrences. These two are not the same and should not be conflated. Tyt is oversimplifying and distorting overly convoluted ethical content of this matter to their favor. Is killing a life acceptable provided another life is saved? If advocates for this act say no, then they are being consistent.
idontgiveashit0930 1 year ago
@idontgiveashit0930 Leaving someone to die of natural occurances?If we follow that train of thought hospitals shouldn't tend to anyone.Burst appendix, brain hemorrhaging, heart attack sufferers shouldn't be treated for their illnesses are ''natural occurances''.And on the other hand, if a 4 months old fetus is threatening the life of the mother it must be aborted, otherwise both the lives of the mother and the fetus will be lost.It's as simple as that.
miellikkiful 1 year ago 8
@miellikkiful You misconstrued my comment and you are conflating the very dichotomy ive mentioned in the video.
idontgiveashit0930 1 year ago
@miellikkiful You make a good point, and I agree. But are you willing to limit abortions to only rape, incest, and life situations? because right now, all 3 combines don't even total 1% of abortions.
bluefootedpig 1 year ago
@bluefootedpig Oh, of course not.I was just referring to circumstances when abortion becomes a necessity due to poor health.I'm not sure of the time limit in the States, in Britain it's 24 weeks (which I find too long), in Turkey it's 10 weeks because if I'm not mistaken the nervous systems of the fetus starts forming in the 8th week.Anyway, I'm for abortion as a choice.My view is; if it's a ''choice'' there must be a time limit, if it's a threat to health, time is irrevelant.
miellikkiful 1 year ago
@miellikkiful You are a breath of fresh air. Maybe I only say that because you share similar beliefs, but yes! if life and death are on the line, time is irrelevent. In the states, it is depending on the state, but it is very similar, I believe after 24 weeks, you need a doctor to perform the abortion. Before that, you can bascially get it for any reason. I believe like 3 states are very liberal in late term abortions.
bluefootedpig 1 year ago
@Briena1982 The first section of this, granting the ex-slaves citizenship, was used to justify abortion on demand in the United States. The dissenting opinion had the following comment on the majority’s justification:
flynlizard 1 year ago
@flynlizard "The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invents that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes." In other words, seven federal justices simply decided that they wanted to make abortion legal and then did it.
flynlizard 1 year ago
Comment removed
flynlizard 1 year ago
Comment removed
flynlizard 1 year ago
@farmgirlnicole I asked this question and yet the trolls cant seem to give me a valid response.
flynlizard 1 year ago
@Briena1982 and for the record I doubt you have read all responses to this video and in no way could prove to me otherwise so your statement is a bit silly. I understand roe vs wade was a change made to the constitution, however were you and are going to argue is how the constitution was defined at the time it was made.
flynlizard 1 year ago
Comment removed
flynlizard 1 year ago
Comment removed
flynlizard 1 year ago
@Briena1982 No you are incapable of providing a response without attacking me personally. Something I would expect a child to do thanks for providing any reasonable response to me. Now I know not to take you seriously.
flynlizard 1 year ago
Instead of calling it the "Protect Life Act" it should probably be called the "Protect Dickwad Doctors Who Won't Do Their Job Act."
To call this Act barbaric is an insult to barbarians. This is inhuman.
ajr5086 1 year ago
If she's at the point where she's going to die unless the fetus is removed something tells me that live birth is out of the question, if she dies it dies no matter what.
oscarthegrump 1 year ago
Did anyone actually read the bill? First this bill is from April 22, 2010. Please read the bill and post where it says anything they are talking about. The only people who will be in trouble are women who want abortions and can't pay for them. That's it. Any woman at risk is EXCEPTED from HR 5111 and all health care professions are not required TO perform nor are they restricted FROM performing abortions!
MyOwnOpinons 1 year ago
@MyOwnOpinons The only people who will be in trouble are women who want abortions and can't pay for them? All health care professions are not required to perform abortions?
You really know how to talk to Pro-choice side.
ajr5086 1 year ago
@ajr5086 Are you joking or being honest? I have been Pro-Choice for over 20 years. That said, I do not believe that abortion is "birth control". I also do not think the public should have to pay for someone's 'choice' According to the bills I have read, no health care professionals will be REQUIRED to perform or shall they be PREVENTED from performing abortions. Allow the private sector to support people who wish to have an abortion and cannot pay. Ever heard of Planned Parenthood?
MyOwnOpinons 1 year ago
@MyOwnOpinons So many Pro-choice groups have been fighting for more accessible abortion option for years, including a public payment plan. If you were to grained down decision of for non-emergency abortion to simply a vain birth control method, it brushes away the true sense of "choice". Your throwing away the non-emergency option without considering all the angles, like how impoverished women have no other choice than bring a baby in a world where they can't be clothed or feed.
ajr5086 1 year ago 12
@ajr5086 Pro-Choice groups who want to increase access to abortions should remember Margaret Sanger's struggles and teach more effective birth control. Impoverished women need to hear that the lure of marriage, the higher wages of males and the love of a child will not break the poverty cycle. This nation spent $26B on Apple products over the last 90 days. Planned Parenthood's YEARLY budget is $100M. "White Guilt" is not having the means, the will or desire to sacrifice your 'birth' status.
MyOwnOpinons 1 year ago
@MyOwnOpinons
I'm sorry, I'm not sure if i quite understood what you were saying or not. could you please clear some things up for me? Are you saying that all women should get married and men should get paid more? I'm hoping thats not what you're saying, but idk. I'm kind of out of it today. I would really appreciate it if you could reword this for me. thanks
xangelsxorxnot 1 year ago
@xangelsxorxnot I had to read it couple of times to understand it, myself. It was directed at me, so I hope that I understood!
He's talking about misguided reasons for impoverished women to get pregnant, I believe. As such, he's referencing a more psychological birth control, which I do support with Planned Parenthood policies in most part. @MyOwnOpinons If I'm wrong about what I said, you definitely need to reword your comment! ; )
ajr5086 1 year ago
Comment removed
rafaelcalsaverini 1 year ago
@ajr5086 I think I agree @MyOwnOpinons in one point: abortion is not birth-control. And I don't even care about religious or ethical bullshit. The thing is condoms and pills are way cheaper, and much less dangerous to everybody. Subside pills and sexual education for poor women. Not abortions.
That said, I must agree with you that this have NOTHING to do with this bill. This bill is affecting emergency abortion. EMERGENCY abortion. Nobody uses EMERGENCY abortion as means of birth control.
rafaelcalsaverini 1 year ago
@rafaelcalsaverini What I read in the bill does say that health providers don't have to grain access to abortions as well as protect those professionals who choice not to preform. I don't have a real problem with people's dislike of non-emergency abortions, I would actually like to see an reduction through better education and improvements in anti-conception methods. What I don't want to see is these larger entities of the government or society dictating what is good and bad in the abortionissue
ajr5086 1 year ago
@ajr5086 You are of course assuming adoption isn't an option. As you said, removing non-emergyency options, but there is still adoption. And with 500k people on a waiting list for new borns, it isn't like that resource is even marginally tapped. In fact, as studies have shown at planned parenting, they are to recommend abortion over adoption, sometimes even ommiting that it is an option unless brought up.
bluefootedpig 1 year ago
@bluefootedpig Not to make it a number game, but your 500k won't cover the nearly 900,000 teen pregnancies by themselves. There's just not enough people, though I'd love to see more and more people adopt across the field at all ages. Hey you can start by adopting me!
Conception preventions and adoptions are some of the best solutions to the abortion rates because it's a real second option to abortion. I'm pro-choice and I want there to be more choices for impregnated women...for everyone really
ajr5086 1 year ago
@ajr5086 True, we do have a lot. But I imagine that the 500k will increase significantly if we started to use it. With how long the wait list is, many people go around and buy the child, to avoid the wait list. Then there are those that just have their own kids instead of waiting 5 years. So I could easily see that number read abortion rates.
But agree, second options are best, and we need to promote them highest. Saddens me that PP doesn't promote it.
bluefootedpig 1 year ago
@bluefootedpig Some might say that we don't need abortion because there is adoption and orphanages. To me, that's like saying that we can completely stop using fossil fuels because there's bio-fuels and solar panels available. You don't strike me as someone who go so far, bluefootedpig.
It's going to take years, probably decades, until anyone can really say that abortion isn't necessary. And even then, I wouldn't stand for it to be denied to people.
ajr5086 1 year ago
@ajr5086 You are right, it is going to take a long time, but the key point is to educate now, and to use the resources that we have now. We could even significant help our over population problem through adoption rather than having a child. But we would need to heavily promote it. Right now PP is not promoting adoption as a solution, and even in sex education adoption is not really covered meanwhile safe sex and abortions are taught.
bluefootedpig 1 year ago
I'm confused. Of all the abortions to attack, why would it be emergency abortions. I'm pro-choice, but I understand there are some people with ethical or religious issues. But I didn't think ANYBODY could be anti-abortion where the mother's life is at risk.
Furthermore, I'm a nurse in Australia, and our law is completely different in Australia. We (health professionals) are forbidden, under law, of using our personal opinions (religion) in treating someone.
It's nuts.
bersaba 1 year ago
@bersaba only radical extremists are against life / death abortions. But what people are against is that rape, incest, and life together add up to less than 1% of abortions in America. That means that 990k abortions are for other reasons, while only 10k or so are for those 3 reasons. That is what people are against,
bluefootedpig 1 year ago
@bluefootedpig
And I can understand (though I disagree) but can understand people objecting to those cases. My point was I can't understand anyone objecting to life at risk abortions, which is what this bill was addressing.
bersaba 1 year ago
I'm pro-life in most cases, but this is just ridiculous. It's absolutely insane. If a woman's life is in danger, of course she should be allowed to have an abortion! The same applies in cases of rape. I just don't think women should be allowed to kill a baby just because they fucked up and didn't plan on getting pregnant. If you don't want the baby, give it up for adoption.
LMA629 1 year ago
@LMA629
I'm not going to attack you for your stance (I'm pro choice) but I want to give you the reasons why I'm pro-choice, perhaps as something you can consider. A person that has 'made a mistake', without physical health issues, may have other issues. For instance, her life may be effected in a severe way. Even before adoption, she'll have large expenses, her job or school might be effected. She might be tempted to get a backyard abortion. Her emotional wellbeing might be at risk, and so on.
bersaba 1 year ago
@LMA629
CONT'D
In an ideal world I wish abortions weren't needed. But I doubt that any woman would choose abortion lightly. It's an extreme measure and, the fact they're getting an abortion leads me to believe they probably need one, for the their own health and wellbeing.
That's why I'm pro-choice (but also pro-condom).
bersaba 1 year ago
@bersaba "pro-choice" doesn't include the use of abortion as a form of birth control; even cenk and ana have voiced their opinions against that ignorant attitude. it means wanting to retain the option of abortion as a last resort. "last resort", of course, having to do with things like terminal birth defects, likeliness of a miscarriage, etc., that will lead to significant health problems for the mother. it has NOTHING to do with your minor inconvenience of having to take online classes instead.
VirtualBilly 1 year ago
@VirtualBilly for me the foremost reason to be pro-abortion as a choice of the woman, and the woman only, is public health. The fact is that many women will get it anyway, being it legal or not. So, it's better to have millions of stupid teenagers doing their abortions in certified clinics than on illegal facilities where they could die.
That said, I believe there should be a big discouragement of this route, massive investment in real sex ed, and subsides to safe means of birth controls.
rafaelcalsaverini 1 year ago
@rafaelcalsaverini well thanks for contradicting my logic with your ignorance. i'm glad we don't live in the same country.
VirtualBilly 1 year ago
thank god i live in CANADA!
grahamkeithtodd 1 year ago
@grahamkeithtodd "some" Americans are fucking dumb! wtf is up with these people? I think we just care more for peoples individuality and well being. PEG CITY!!
Snoop18719 1 year ago
@grahamkeithtodd if this law passes, I might be moving there. I don't want to live in a country where health officials can do this.
bubbleypixie 1 year ago
Woa irony. Are Republicans all hipsters?
Spherical3 1 year ago
Maybe the GOP is just trying to be funny.
Right guys?
arbuckle1029 1 year ago 2
Even Sarah Palin would oppose this...I have to believe that republicans wouldn't be so insane as to vote for this...I just have to believe that they wouldn't.
femmefatale1990 1 year ago
Without any disrespect to the GOP, I can only think of one Republican that would vote against this.
Norway2011 1 year ago
@Norway2011 I would.
LMA629 1 year ago
dont freak out people.. this clearly wont pass
JOBOB335 1 year ago
Yet when those children grow up and need a surgery that their parents can't afford, where are these pro lifers?
jrsam25 1 year ago 21
This should be the called "Kill women because of your misogynistic beliefs act."
bubbleypixie 1 year ago
Hospitals are not going to let women die in the streets. Someone is trying to frighten you. In the U.S., there are rarely any circumstances where a woman would DIE if she didn't get an abortion on demand. This bill is about correcting Obamacare - which would direct tax payer money to provide on-demand abortions. A large portion of the country is NOT OK with their taxes being used for something they feel is wrong. But, if Obamacare is voided as unconstitutional, there wouldn't be a need for this.
MrPinksBane 1 year ago
@MrPinksBane an Ectopic pregnancy is a circumstance in which a women would require an abortion on demand, and they aren't really that rare at all. This bill, like your comment, is based in ignorance.
iscreamzombie 1 year ago
@iscreamzombie Ectopic pregnancy is regularly handled in Catholic Hospitals - there is no problem with the Church on this issue (it is you who have been given incorrect info). The Church is against abortion for the sake of ending the child's life. With ectopic pregnancy, the problem portion of the tube is removed to save the mother's life in emergency circumstances (this ends the child's life because we do not have the technology to transfer the baby to the womb - not because of intent to kill)
MrPinksBane 1 year ago
WHY??????!!!!!!
cheeseit126 1 year ago
"like I said it's indefensable... DUDE GET A LOAD OF NETFLIX!"
I laughed.
EpicnessInABox 1 year ago
Republican death panels
TayGizzle 1 year ago
Reminds me of the movie Absolute Strangers. It was based on a true story where a woman was in a coma and pregnant. The family wanted her to get an abortion because there was complications that could kill her. The husband had to fight all the way to the supreme court against neocons and the religious right. He finally won and the woman in the coma got the abortion. When she woke up from the coma she understood. They won, and this is new bill is going to fail.
ChameleonLost88 1 year ago
@ChameleonLost88 kind of remind me of "sophie's choice".
AceofDiamonds0 1 year ago
you suck republicans
LaFemmeCelena 1 year ago
So if you have an ectopic pregnancy, you are legally required to have a hemorrhage and die from internal bleeding. What the fuck?
Meex1989 1 year ago
@Meex1989 I guess so. Aren't anti choicers great? Maybe the should just make women into property again. They don't seem to see us as human beings.
bubbleypixie 1 year ago
GOP = Hate
TheJadeKat 1 year ago
the great George Carlin said it best pro-lifers aren't pro-life their anti-women
ncp9one 1 year ago 38
@ncp9one how would I be anti-women if I am a woman? I'm not anti-women, I'm anti-murder. though I do agree that women should be allowed to abort in cases of rape or medical emergencies.
LMA629 1 year ago
If this passes the US is one step closer to third world country.
Iritas1985 1 year ago 40
@Iritas1985 if it wasnt for liberals who make laws based on logic, the US would already be a third world country.
cannabisbisbisbisbis 1 year ago
Hospitals in the US don't make money off of abortions, they make scads of money off of prenatal care for high risk pregnancies though. Think about it.
regtracker 1 year ago 4
Logic!.....HA!!...Right wingers don't care about logic. They believe there's an invisible man floating above the stars.
kirkgrniis 1 year ago
Comment removed
Briena1982 1 year ago
I can keep going with this if you want briena1982 but if your not going to provide logical discourse as your page suggest than I will be happy not to keep casting my pearls before swine.
flynlizard 1 year ago
We always have prayer..
OH GOD PLEASE HELP REPUBLICANS STOP BEING SO FUCKING CRAZY.
elviolette 1 year ago 3
Republican mindset: protect the babies, don't kill the child it's murder. However, if that child grows up to be a liberal, or an illegal immigrant, or lazy, or a welfare recipient, fuck 'em, they need to be shot or kicked out of the country.
WrathOfNolla 1 year ago 2
@WrathOfNolla Granted I agree with you, i think the logic though is that with abortion, the baby has no choice. Being liberal, illegal immigrant, or lazy, is a choice of the person. It isn't like me choosing to cross the US border will somehow cause another human to die. Imagine if every person that crossed the US border illegally caused 1 death. How long before we would stop illegal immigration?
bluefootedpig 1 year ago
@bluefootedpig
"if every person that crossed the US border illegally caused 1 death. How long before we would stop illegal immigration? " The same rate you would stop smoking, drinking, traffic or junk food?
wimscheers 1 year ago
@wimscheers People tend to care more when it involves someone else. If illegal immigrants caused someone else to die everytime, we would stop it asap. Smoking, drinking, traffic, junk food, those all can be avoided or are personal, they only affect you. Abortion, which means to prevent an outcome, must prevent something... a baby from being born. So abortions are stopping a baby from being born. Again, if illegal immigrants corssing the border killed one random person each, we wouldn't allow it.
bluefootedpig 1 year ago
@bluefootedpig
"if illegal immigrants corssing the border killed one random person each, we wouldn't allow it." I'll be honest here, the abortion debate is complicated. Pragmatism meets morality, realism meats utopianism, in the end it’s one fucked up mess we’ll all drown in if we try to stand on a zero tolerance principle. It’s a grey zone, and I’d rather have women not being poked with rusty Clothes hangers in some rat infested alley, nor do I like the current abortion rate in New York.
wimscheers 1 year ago
@wimscheers I agree, it is a very grey area. That is why I am fine with the 3 big ones, rape, incest, and life. But seeing as that is only 1%, I would be happy with that. Everything you do in life has conseq