do u know how many people who have abortion later on get depressed and have problems in life. and all we do is watch them go through it and not even help. Thats how stupid we can be sometimes. People really dont realize it. Most of the women have regrets on it later. I know some girls who regret it. also its dumb. lets kill the baby so i can have fun again. or i cant take care of the baby so lets kill it. give it up 4 adoption at least.
If someone wants an abortion thats their decision.
Shut the fuck up & get on with it. People are fucking stupid if they're against abortion, you don't understand unless you've been in that situation & remember that fucking contraception isn't 100% effective. Idiot.
When "I Can't Comprehend It's Not Butter Artificial Spread" is cooked the artificial taste is muted down, much like the results of an aborted baby's taste when has come to boil. Seeing as how i do not enjoy the taste of raw meat, I cook them most of the time so the taste is always neutral. So what is you opinion on the taste cooked or fresh taste of these delectable two?
Is it just me or do still borns taste, dare I say, scrumtrulecent when compared to aborted babies? All though when an aborted baby is in soup you can't taste a diference. It's much like comparing "I Can't Comprehend It's Not Butter Artificial Spread" with legitamite butter.
Why is there such hatred for those who feel someone's right to choose does not trump another person's right to live? Isn't that the crux of the debate?
I hate women who protest men raping women. No penis, no opinion. (Obviously I don't believe this, but pose the question merely to show how flawed Buried's reasoning is, as if arguments have gender.)
Don't abortions kill male fetuses, at least half of the time? A woman deciding to do something that involves her body does victimize males when they're getting killed in the process. You can say I make no sense all you want, but you certainly haven't proved it. By the way, ignoring my premises isn't the same thing as refuting them, but I think you know that.
What is this "BIG difference" then, between a kid and a fetus, that makes it okay to kill one, but not the other? What does the trimester have to do with anything? If abortion is right, you shouldn't feel compelled to qualify "most of them" with a particular trimester. It's almost as if you feel like abortion is worse with more developed fetuses.
the dael is stop killing kids thats the deal here and what you people going to say to god if he ask you why you killed my kids for and hes going to put you go to hall forever you will not die at all in hall are the right places
I'm in the same boat. I believe that YouTube is upgrading their comment code, which is accounting for the issues. Even so, I can't help but be annoyed by being unable to continue in the discussions I so enjoy.
Now go ahead and insult me, don't make any logical statements, and write things like "im pro-choice stop taking away my choice!" and the ever popular "keep your rosaries off my ovaries", the fact is you can't argue with logic.
Actually, there's a step missing here. Though infants and children need care, their bodies are able to survive independently if provided with food/water by someone. I think it's a reasonable place to draw the line: "Can it survive outside of its mother's body?" (and reach "normal" development, not severely premature) That may seem arbitrary to you, but it is reasonable and serves a purpose.
I'm assuming you are saying that if a child cannot survive outside its mothers womb, then it is not human. Lets say that in the future there will be ways to keep a fetus alive, outside of its mother, for the whole nine months of development. I'm sure you concur that someday science will allow us to do this. So, does this mean that a 1 month old fetus in the year 2100 will be human, but a 1 month old fetus in 2006 is not human? How can this be?
So our degree of dependency and quality of development determine whether or not we're valuable human beings with a right to live? You just wiped out several categories of people. Your qualifiers are arbitrary and, worse than that, they're self-serving. There's no basis for them other than your own opinion. You put a lot more than unborn babies at risk with that kind of reasoning. If you ever wind up in a plastic bubble or with a severe disability, I wonder if you'll still feel the same way.
Wow, isn't it weird that I believed what I did given that I cared for people with severe disabilities then? Oh! Although they needed care they were suriviving as separate bodies! They weren't growing inside me, taking over my body and causin terrible pain coming out. Granted, people need to be more responsible about WHETHER they get pregnant. Abortion is difficult enough for most women, they don't need your externally imposed guilt trip.
Our government isn't a religious one. Sure, people can be against abortion, but it needs to be for a reason other than religion. Not everybody subscribes to Christian views.
Virtually every law in this country (there are exceptions - abortion being one of them) is based on Judeo-Christian values. Are you ready to throw them all out? If that's the case, I'd like to take your car the next time you're not looking. You'll need to oppose my right to do that with something besides religion though. Would you be able to?
Come on larry, I mean really, "do not kill" and "do not steal". Where is the separation of church and state??? The government shouldn't impose religious laws on me, I should be allowed to kill or steal as much as I want....
Being sarcastic. ;D
How would a country without morals exist cfishy5? What kind of laws would there be...
feminazbynight you really need to shut the fuck up. If women can legally get their babies sucked out of them with a vacuum, then this man can certainly protest it. bitch.
I'm afraid this sort of behaviour, rather than peaceful, non-invasive campaigning, doesn't do "pro-lifers" any favours. People attending the clinic aren't going to take notice of an old guy shouting at them, just as you wouldn't if you were at the supermarket. Yelling about his imaginary friend (god) doesn't make things much better either. Doesn't he remember Psalm 137: "Blessed is he that taketh thy children and dasheth them against the stones"? What kind of a religion is that, anyway?
aborton is a personal choice, what hes' doing is invasive, insensitive and making a difficult decision even harder which makes him look like an old fool, sorry! im sure his intentions are good, but hes' only bringing negative attention to his cause!if he truly cared about this issue he'd research the reasons behind it and try to support these poor women through an emotionally crippling time.
Why is it emotionally crippling? According to you it is a personal choice. Whey aren't people "emotionally crippled" when they get their tonsils removed, or appendix. If a fetus is just a body part, what is the big deal? Its almost as if there is something different about a fetus, than tonsils, or an appendix.
well i think hes good and at less some people go to protester at less he goess to it and order pple i know goes to but i really think lot off pple dong go i dont know why
i think Prince will let me have hes song beause i think he like lil kids have they freedom have they live not that killed them at all why you have to killed lil kids for i dont undstane that i think its really stiped to ask me but i am saying its wong if you if you told crisis you killd one of one kid you go to wong places bilve me
Do you really think Prince will appriciate you using his song in this video??? BTW, that animation at the end would make most of the cheap animation out there look good.
While he has the right to protest (as do we all) does he really think that yelling at people and yelling about abortion being murder (since murder is a legal term, and abortion doesn't fit that definition, it isn't) is going to help his side?
Yelling and screaming makes the mess worse. If people could be mature, and look at the issue logically, maybe some productive (like better sex education and better help for children living in poverty) rather than destructive could be accomplished.
If people could be mature? What is mature about abortion? It's insanity at its worse! Yeah, the old guy sounds a little crazy, but that's nothing compared to God's wrath over the whole issue.
I didn't know that you spoke with God. You must be some sort of prophit to know what God thinks about this issue. Or else you are making a heavy assumption.
There is nothing against abortion in the Bible. You have no clue if God really does agree with you on this matter.
And abortion can be a mature choice. Just because you don't happen to agree with something doesn't mean it isn't a mature and responsible choice for some people. "Mature" doesn't mean "what fiveeagles thinks is the right choice".
I wouldn't call deciding to get an abortion "responsible". In fact, it is the opposite. A responsible choice would be to take care of the child, and be mature enough to know that having sex could result in a living human being. Deciding that you don't want a child, and therefore killing it, is not a responsible choice. Its shrugging off responsibility.
You know, slave owners used the same kind of logic before the Civil War. "If you don't like slavery, don't own one." Your reasoning is exceptionally flawed. I'd like to rephrase your own question back to you: Why should they (the unborn) be FORCED to die because YOU don't like them?
No - slavery is the use of someone else's body (for unpaid labor) without their consent.
Unborn humans are violating the bodily integrity of pregnant women, and need their permission to continue living inside and off of women. Abortion is the ending of this violation, and so must be kept legal (or else you are taking away the right of pregnant women to control their own bodies, making them into something not unlike slaves).
Slavery was the imposition of one's "right" to do whatever they wanted with another human being - just as abortion is today. Abortionists are violating the "bodily integrity" of the unborn. "Living inside and off of women"? Okay, so can I kill all of the children living inside of my home and off of my paycheck? Or are you going to tell me that I'm enslaved to take care of them and feed them simply because they're in a different kind of location than the unborn?
Furthermore, your premise is completely false. Women have never had the unrestricted "right" to "control their own bodies" and don't now. Women are told they can't inject themselves with heroin and that they can't use their bodies to harm a person that's already born. A mother can't take her first and repeatedly strike a newborn simply because she has the "right" to "control her own body", whatever that means.
Thirdly, what could be more of a violation of "bodily integrity" than shoving a metal object into the back of someone's skull, attaching a vacuum, and sucking their brains out? Do you realize how many double standards you subscribe to?
1. Bodily integrity is a legal right that has been granted to us through legal precident (like the right to privacy). The "right to life" doesn't even have legal precident to give it weight.
2. If your children are living inside of your body, you are well within your right to remove them. If this removal kills them, then you are justified in doing so.
1. Where is the right to privacy covered in the Constitution? I seem to remember the "right to life" however.
2.. The unborn child will eventually be born, naturally. Does for convenience, a person has the right to kill? Funny, I don't remember "the right to life (except if you are located inside a womb, or an inconvenience), liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" being in the constitution.
1. Where is the right to privacy covered in the Constitution? I seem to remember the "right to life" however.
2.. The unborn child will eventually be born, naturally. Does for convenience, a person has the right to kill? Funny, I don't remember "the right to life (except if you are located inside a womb, or an inconvenience), liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" being in the constitution.
Referring to your second point, you do concede that those are children living inside of their mother's bodies? In other words, other than location, level of development, degree of dependency and size, are there any other significant differences between the born and the unborn? Are both full-fledged human beings?
"Human being" is an ethical term, which implies some level of consciousness and self awareness. However, an unborn human IS human, and alive.
However, the degree of dependency and the level of development mean a LOT more than what value you place on them. BECAUSE an unborn human CANNOT survive outside of the women, there is no way to immediately end its violation of her bodily integrity that doesn't result in its death.
1. Like I said, Bodily Integrity is a right that has been granted through LEGAL PRECEDENT. And the "right to life" is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
2. If I am assaulting you, I eventually will stop. Does that mean you shouldn't fight back now?
In the case of an unexpected pregnancy, the ONLY ways to immediately remove the violator result in death.
How can someone with a level of consciousness so low that they don't even qualify as a human being (according to your apparent definition) be called a violator? A violator is one who violates. I mean, if I'm unconscious, I can't do much of anything, let alone assault someone, as you say the unborn does to the mother. You're playing word games to justify abortion.
So can I set my one-year old daughter outside of my home in the winter time and let her freeze to death because she's "violating" my "residential integrity", which has been established by legal precedent (this is private property). The only way to immediately remove her (the "violator") results in death. <shrug>
Just to be clear on your first statement, are you saying that there is a difference between a human being and a human, and that the difference is that a human being has some level of consciousness and self awareness, and a human does not necessarily? To further clarify my understanding of your point, are you a human being? Are there any significant differences between you and an unborn human, excluding your aforementioned "in the mother's womb" qualification?
Even if someone is unaware of their violation, they are still violating. If a mentally handicapped man were trying to rape me, even if he was not in control of his actions, it would still be rape. And I would still be within my rights to protect myself from him.
An unborn baby is created by its parents, they put it in the situation of surviving off its mother. There is nothing else the unborn child can do. Your logic is like saying if a parent put a knife in a child's hand, then forced the child to stab somone to death, the child should be convicted of murder, even though they couldn't control their actions.
No. Because no one purposely gets pregnant and then gets an abortion. I'm saying that a woman still gets to control her body, even if an unborn human happens to be living off her.
She controls her body, and so control the fate of the unborn child until it can survive outside of her.
That statement is incorrect either way you look at it. First off a fetus is not part of a woman's body, or else the woman would have two brains, four arms, and twenty fingers. Secondly, even if the fetus was a part of the woman, a woman does not have the right to do whatever she wants to her body. This is why things like prostitution and certain drugs are illegal. Where did you get this idea that a woman can do anything to her body? Should a man be allowed to do anything to his body?
If you feel that being pregnant is a violation of your body, then you and the unborn's father are the actual violators. The child is merely the result of that "violation" and is by no means culpable.
your grandpa has balls of steel! its the bitches who kill their young who are the nutbars. If they decide to keep their child, all of a sudden its little miss/mr. precious! Otherwise, turn on the vaccuum and suck away!
do u know how many people who have abortion later on get depressed and have problems in life. and all we do is watch them go through it and not even help. Thats how stupid we can be sometimes. People really dont realize it. Most of the women have regrets on it later. I know some girls who regret it. also its dumb. lets kill the baby so i can have fun again. or i cant take care of the baby so lets kill it. give it up 4 adoption at least.
ZOOYORKRIDER7 2 years ago
Science shows, however, that far more women suffer psychological after-effects from CHILDBIRTH. Most women feel relieved after an abortion.
mirrormirrorify 2 years ago
If someone wants an abortion thats their decision.
Shut the fuck up & get on with it. People are fucking stupid if they're against abortion, you don't understand unless you've been in that situation & remember that fucking contraception isn't 100% effective. Idiot.
Buriedmyselfalivex 4 years ago
When "I Can't Comprehend It's Not Butter Artificial Spread" is cooked the artificial taste is muted down, much like the results of an aborted baby's taste when has come to boil. Seeing as how i do not enjoy the taste of raw meat, I cook them most of the time so the taste is always neutral. So what is you opinion on the taste cooked or fresh taste of these delectable two?
braindamage53 5 years ago
what the hell are you talking about?
mckeownmatt 4 years ago
Is it just me or do still borns taste, dare I say, scrumtrulecent when compared to aborted babies? All though when an aborted baby is in soup you can't taste a diference. It's much like comparing "I Can't Comprehend It's Not Butter Artificial Spread" with legitamite butter.
braindamage53 5 years ago
Why is there such hatred for those who feel someone's right to choose does not trump another person's right to live? Isn't that the crux of the debate?
rpmelvin 5 years ago
I hate guys who protest abortion. No womb No opinion.
What an old bastard. I hope he rots.
Buriedmyselfalivex 5 years ago
I hate guys who protest abortion. No womb No opinion.<<<
I totally agree. Dont like abortions, dont have them. Cant have them? Keep the pants zipped.
noneofyerbiznezz 5 years ago
I hate women who protest men raping women. No penis, no opinion. (Obviously I don't believe this, but pose the question merely to show how flawed Buried's reasoning is, as if arguments have gender.)
larryds3 5 years ago
larry, that is ridiculous. LOL women are the victims of rape. OF COURSE its women have opinions on it. Strong opinions
Geez, I shouldnt have been nice to you on that one board. Now youre talkin out your ass in all directions
noneofyerbiznezz 5 years ago
And men are the victims of abortion. <shrug> C'mon, None, be consistent.
larryds3 5 years ago
LOL men are the victims of abortion?! LOL yes, a woman deciding to do something with her body victimizes a man oh the tragedy.
I've to go ignore you. I said one nice thing to you, and now you're moronically goin off on a bunch of boards making no fucking sense.
Buh bye emotional, illogical antichoicer
noneofyerbiznezz 5 years ago
Don't abortions kill male fetuses, at least half of the time? A woman deciding to do something that involves her body does victimize males when they're getting killed in the process. You can say I make no sense all you want, but you certainly haven't proved it. By the way, ignoring my premises isn't the same thing as refuting them, but I think you know that.
larryds3 5 years ago
You're seriously mentally disturbed. Must be the aftereffects of an abortion.
mirrormirrorify 2 years ago
Yo' rally doesn't hafta git so emoshunal about it. It's ok thet others doesn't see it th' way yo' does. Yo' kin survive, ah have faif.
JimmyDonCletus 3 years ago
all i am saying killding kids for northign is wong if you killd your doaugher is wong are your son beause god sayend so
crazylopez88 5 years ago
lopez, an abortion isnt killing a kid, its the termination of the development of a fetus, usually in the first trimester
BIG difference
noneofyerbiznezz 5 years ago
What is this "BIG difference" then, between a kid and a fetus, that makes it okay to kill one, but not the other? What does the trimester have to do with anything? If abortion is right, you shouldn't feel compelled to qualify "most of them" with a particular trimester. It's almost as if you feel like abortion is worse with more developed fetuses.
larryds3 5 years ago
the dael is stop killing kids thats the deal here and what you people going to say to god if he ask you why you killed my kids for and hes going to put you go to hall forever you will not die at all in hall are the right places
crazylopez88 5 years ago
Can I post?
larryds3 5 years ago
Have I lost my ability to post to this site? I've been unable to post anything new for a week. What's the deal?
larryds3 5 years ago
I'm in the same boat. I believe that YouTube is upgrading their comment code, which is accounting for the issues. Even so, I can't help but be annoyed by being unable to continue in the discussions I so enjoy.
WatersMoon110 5 years ago
Wow, you must be one intelligent individual burriedmyselfalivex...
armoredcavalry 5 years ago
What a fucking old wanker
Buriedmyselfalivex 5 years ago
Now go ahead and insult me, don't make any logical statements, and write things like "im pro-choice stop taking away my choice!" and the ever popular "keep your rosaries off my ovaries", the fact is you can't argue with logic.
armoredcavalry 5 years ago
Now for my response:
1.Location determines whether something is human or not? If a child is half in and half out of the womb is it half human?
2.A two year old is dependent on its mother, but does that make it non-human?
3.Humans are not fully developed until well into their teenage years, so age determines if a person is human?
Logically, justification of abortion makes no sense.
armoredcavalry 5 years ago
Actually, there's a step missing here. Though infants and children need care, their bodies are able to survive independently if provided with food/water by someone. I think it's a reasonable place to draw the line: "Can it survive outside of its mother's body?" (and reach "normal" development, not severely premature) That may seem arbitrary to you, but it is reasonable and serves a purpose.
xtragicjane 5 years ago
I'm assuming you are saying that if a child cannot survive outside its mothers womb, then it is not human. Lets say that in the future there will be ways to keep a fetus alive, outside of its mother, for the whole nine months of development. I'm sure you concur that someday science will allow us to do this. So, does this mean that a 1 month old fetus in the year 2100 will be human, but a 1 month old fetus in 2006 is not human? How can this be?
armoredcavalry 5 years ago
So our degree of dependency and quality of development determine whether or not we're valuable human beings with a right to live? You just wiped out several categories of people. Your qualifiers are arbitrary and, worse than that, they're self-serving. There's no basis for them other than your own opinion. You put a lot more than unborn babies at risk with that kind of reasoning. If you ever wind up in a plastic bubble or with a severe disability, I wonder if you'll still feel the same way.
larryds3 5 years ago
Wow, isn't it weird that I believed what I did given that I cared for people with severe disabilities then? Oh! Although they needed care they were suriviving as separate bodies! They weren't growing inside me, taking over my body and causin terrible pain coming out. Granted, people need to be more responsible about WHETHER they get pregnant. Abortion is difficult enough for most women, they don't need your externally imposed guilt trip.
xtragicjane 4 years ago
So lets go with logic, first off abortion should be legal because (see my next comment for my response):
1. A fetus is inside a mother, therefor not human.
2. A fetus is dependent on its mother, therefore not human.
3. A fetus is not fully developed, therefore not human.
armoredcavalry 5 years ago
Our government isn't a religious one. Sure, people can be against abortion, but it needs to be for a reason other than religion. Not everybody subscribes to Christian views.
cfishy5 5 years ago
Virtually every law in this country (there are exceptions - abortion being one of them) is based on Judeo-Christian values. Are you ready to throw them all out? If that's the case, I'd like to take your car the next time you're not looking. You'll need to oppose my right to do that with something besides religion though. Would you be able to?
larryds3 5 years ago
Come on larry, I mean really, "do not kill" and "do not steal". Where is the separation of church and state??? The government shouldn't impose religious laws on me, I should be allowed to kill or steal as much as I want....
Being sarcastic. ;D
How would a country without morals exist cfishy5? What kind of laws would there be...
armoredcavalry 5 years ago
I don't mind abortion...
but I'm sick of people getting angry at protesters! Let him rant, silly communists.
SLCThunk 5 years ago
I'm not a christian, but I still think abortion is murder, so I say: Your grandpa rocks!
li1986 5 years ago
feminazbynight you really need to shut the fuck up. If women can legally get their babies sucked out of them with a vacuum, then this man can certainly protest it. bitch.
737200LVR 5 years ago
What a total dick...
Epyon42 5 years ago
I'm afraid this sort of behaviour, rather than peaceful, non-invasive campaigning, doesn't do "pro-lifers" any favours. People attending the clinic aren't going to take notice of an old guy shouting at them, just as you wouldn't if you were at the supermarket. Yelling about his imaginary friend (god) doesn't make things much better either. Doesn't he remember Psalm 137: "Blessed is he that taketh thy children and dasheth them against the stones"? What kind of a religion is that, anyway?
Finzi22 5 years ago
talk about pushing your personal beliefs on people
grateful420angelina 5 years ago
aborton is a personal choice, what hes' doing is invasive, insensitive and making a difficult decision even harder which makes him look like an old fool, sorry! im sure his intentions are good, but hes' only bringing negative attention to his cause!if he truly cared about this issue he'd research the reasons behind it and try to support these poor women through an emotionally crippling time.
shellchardon 5 years ago
Why is it emotionally crippling? According to you it is a personal choice. Whey aren't people "emotionally crippled" when they get their tonsils removed, or appendix. If a fetus is just a body part, what is the big deal? Its almost as if there is something different about a fetus, than tonsils, or an appendix.
armoredcavalry 5 years ago
well i think hes good and at less some people go to protester at less he goess to it and order pple i know goes to but i really think lot off pple dong go i dont know why
crazylopez88 5 years ago
Your grampa isent a good protester..Sorry
BarnBrat 5 years ago
Religious idiots, jesus was a pro choice homosexual
bimtly 5 years ago
silly antitheists, hostility to religon does not prove a point.
gritmafia 5 years ago
god bless him
vopat 5 years ago
i think Prince will let me have hes song beause i think he like lil kids have they freedom have they live not that killed them at all why you have to killed lil kids for i dont undstane that i think its really stiped to ask me but i am saying its wong if you if you told crisis you killd one of one kid you go to wong places bilve me
crazylopez88 5 years ago
Do you really think Prince will appriciate you using his song in this video??? BTW, that animation at the end would make most of the cheap animation out there look good.
tbo452 5 years ago
While he has the right to protest (as do we all) does he really think that yelling at people and yelling about abortion being murder (since murder is a legal term, and abortion doesn't fit that definition, it isn't) is going to help his side?
Yelling and screaming makes the mess worse. If people could be mature, and look at the issue logically, maybe some productive (like better sex education and better help for children living in poverty) rather than destructive could be accomplished.
WatersMoon110 5 years ago
If people could be mature? What is mature about abortion? It's insanity at its worse! Yeah, the old guy sounds a little crazy, but that's nothing compared to God's wrath over the whole issue.
fiveeagles 5 years ago
I didn't know that you spoke with God. You must be some sort of prophit to know what God thinks about this issue. Or else you are making a heavy assumption.
There is nothing against abortion in the Bible. You have no clue if God really does agree with you on this matter.
WatersMoon110 5 years ago
And abortion can be a mature choice. Just because you don't happen to agree with something doesn't mean it isn't a mature and responsible choice for some people. "Mature" doesn't mean "what fiveeagles thinks is the right choice".
WatersMoon110 5 years ago
I wouldn't call deciding to get an abortion "responsible". In fact, it is the opposite. A responsible choice would be to take care of the child, and be mature enough to know that having sex could result in a living human being. Deciding that you don't want a child, and therefore killing it, is not a responsible choice. Its shrugging off responsibility.
armoredcavalry 5 years ago
"Responsible" does NOT mean "what armoredcavalry thinks I should do". You are free to never get an abortion or associate with anyone who would.
But some people do feel that aborting is responsible AND mature. Why should they be FORCED to keep a pregnancy because YOU don't like abortion?
WatersMoon110 5 years ago
You know, slave owners used the same kind of logic before the Civil War. "If you don't like slavery, don't own one." Your reasoning is exceptionally flawed. I'd like to rephrase your own question back to you: Why should they (the unborn) be FORCED to die because YOU don't like them?
larryds3 5 years ago
No - slavery is the use of someone else's body (for unpaid labor) without their consent.
Unborn humans are violating the bodily integrity of pregnant women, and need their permission to continue living inside and off of women. Abortion is the ending of this violation, and so must be kept legal (or else you are taking away the right of pregnant women to control their own bodies, making them into something not unlike slaves).
WatersMoon110 5 years ago
Slavery was the imposition of one's "right" to do whatever they wanted with another human being - just as abortion is today. Abortionists are violating the "bodily integrity" of the unborn. "Living inside and off of women"? Okay, so can I kill all of the children living inside of my home and off of my paycheck? Or are you going to tell me that I'm enslaved to take care of them and feed them simply because they're in a different kind of location than the unborn?
larryds3 5 years ago
Furthermore, your premise is completely false. Women have never had the unrestricted "right" to "control their own bodies" and don't now. Women are told they can't inject themselves with heroin and that they can't use their bodies to harm a person that's already born. A mother can't take her first and repeatedly strike a newborn simply because she has the "right" to "control her own body", whatever that means.
larryds3 5 years ago
Thirdly, what could be more of a violation of "bodily integrity" than shoving a metal object into the back of someone's skull, attaching a vacuum, and sucking their brains out? Do you realize how many double standards you subscribe to?
larryds3 5 years ago
1. Bodily integrity is a legal right that has been granted to us through legal precident (like the right to privacy). The "right to life" doesn't even have legal precident to give it weight.
2. If your children are living inside of your body, you are well within your right to remove them. If this removal kills them, then you are justified in doing so.
WatersMoon110 5 years ago
1. Where is the right to privacy covered in the Constitution? I seem to remember the "right to life" however.
2.. The unborn child will eventually be born, naturally. Does for convenience, a person has the right to kill? Funny, I don't remember "the right to life (except if you are located inside a womb, or an inconvenience), liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" being in the constitution.
armoredcavalry 5 years ago
1. Where is the right to privacy covered in the Constitution? I seem to remember the "right to life" however.
2.. The unborn child will eventually be born, naturally. Does for convenience, a person has the right to kill? Funny, I don't remember "the right to life (except if you are located inside a womb, or an inconvenience), liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" being in the constitution.
armoredcavalry 5 years ago
Referring to your second point, you do concede that those are children living inside of their mother's bodies? In other words, other than location, level of development, degree of dependency and size, are there any other significant differences between the born and the unborn? Are both full-fledged human beings?
larryds3 5 years ago
"Human being" is an ethical term, which implies some level of consciousness and self awareness. However, an unborn human IS human, and alive.
However, the degree of dependency and the level of development mean a LOT more than what value you place on them. BECAUSE an unborn human CANNOT survive outside of the women, there is no way to immediately end its violation of her bodily integrity that doesn't result in its death.
WatersMoon110 5 years ago
1. Like I said, Bodily Integrity is a right that has been granted through LEGAL PRECEDENT. And the "right to life" is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
2. If I am assaulting you, I eventually will stop. Does that mean you shouldn't fight back now?
In the case of an unexpected pregnancy, the ONLY ways to immediately remove the violator result in death.
WatersMoon110 5 years ago
How can someone with a level of consciousness so low that they don't even qualify as a human being (according to your apparent definition) be called a violator? A violator is one who violates. I mean, if I'm unconscious, I can't do much of anything, let alone assault someone, as you say the unborn does to the mother. You're playing word games to justify abortion.
larryds3 5 years ago
So can I set my one-year old daughter outside of my home in the winter time and let her freeze to death because she's "violating" my "residential integrity", which has been established by legal precedent (this is private property). The only way to immediately remove her (the "violator") results in death. <shrug>
larryds3 5 years ago
Read the 14th amendment.
armoredcavalry 5 years ago
Read the 14th amendment.<<<
God, you're such a parrot. Is saying *read something* supposed to be deep in your little antichoice world?
LOL antichoicers are so stupid
noneofyerbiznezz 5 years ago
Just to be clear on your first statement, are you saying that there is a difference between a human being and a human, and that the difference is that a human being has some level of consciousness and self awareness, and a human does not necessarily? To further clarify my understanding of your point, are you a human being? Are there any significant differences between you and an unborn human, excluding your aforementioned "in the mother's womb" qualification?
larryds3 5 years ago
Even if someone is unaware of their violation, they are still violating. If a mentally handicapped man were trying to rape me, even if he was not in control of his actions, it would still be rape. And I would still be within my rights to protect myself from him.
WatersMoon110 5 years ago
An unborn baby is created by its parents, they put it in the situation of surviving off its mother. There is nothing else the unborn child can do. Your logic is like saying if a parent put a knife in a child's hand, then forced the child to stab somone to death, the child should be convicted of murder, even though they couldn't control their actions.
armoredcavalry 5 years ago
No. Because no one purposely gets pregnant and then gets an abortion. I'm saying that a woman still gets to control her body, even if an unborn human happens to be living off her.
She controls her body, and so control the fate of the unborn child until it can survive outside of her.
WatersMoon110 5 years ago
That statement is incorrect either way you look at it. First off a fetus is not part of a woman's body, or else the woman would have two brains, four arms, and twenty fingers. Secondly, even if the fetus was a part of the woman, a woman does not have the right to do whatever she wants to her body. This is why things like prostitution and certain drugs are illegal. Where did you get this idea that a woman can do anything to her body? Should a man be allowed to do anything to his body?
armoredcavalry 5 years ago
If you feel that being pregnant is a violation of your body, then you and the unborn's father are the actual violators. The child is merely the result of that "violation" and is by no means culpable.
larryds3 5 years ago
It was your egg and the father's sperm. You're accusing a zygote of committing assault. With all due respect, get real.
larryds3 5 years ago
your grandpa has balls of steel! its the bitches who kill their young who are the nutbars. If they decide to keep their child, all of a sudden its little miss/mr. precious! Otherwise, turn on the vaccuum and suck away!
pennyloafer 5 years ago
The human pop....is going up everyday. I don't think we need kids in foster care or having a bad life. That's just what I think.
JadeTsukasa 5 years ago
What a nutbag.
u4ikreign 5 years ago
Preach in a church, not in the faces of women exercising their legal right.
FeminaziByNight 5 years ago
Your grandpa is retarded
BigGoalieDan 5 years ago
why is that he trying to doing right think and why u like idel killed kids for
crazylopez88 5 years ago
he has the right to protest. you're retarded
CowieMooCowxo87 5 years ago
Good vid. You're grandpa is cool.
thesaiyan 5 years ago