I hope a sled full of Eskimos gang rapes every Palin child,including the tard... after clubbing Sarah and Todd like seals of course. They could use Sarahs sun-dried skin to make whimsical native dolls, souvenirs that will be sold to republican hunters and the spawn they created via the missionary position.
well done! great response to Republican ads!! and you didn't have to bend the truth at all, as the Republicans do time and time again. if we must resort to fear-mongering, we must adhere to the truth!
1) Palin has repeatedly and very openly admitted that her policy would be a strict pro-life policy. If she became president it is obvious that this would be a policy she would try to pass down to the rest of America.
2) Did anyone else feel like this guy's voice was eerily similar to the guy from the Saw movies?... "Hello Sarah, I want to play a game..." Creepy!
Many people feel Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. As a matter of law alone, it was a terrible decision.
Still, if it was overturned, each state would simply pass their own laws.
Now, if you really believe most Americans do support abortion, what is there to worry about? Wouldn't the normal democratic process take care of this?
Right. I have heard her speak many times on this, supporting rapists. Clearly, being a conservative, she must be in favour of rape. Rape is good, right? Isn't it?
Claiming she supports rape is over the top. More accurately, she is soft on rapists. Why this is so is curious. Typically, conservatives are law and order. Then again, McCain came out against programs to protect young kids from sexual predators. How did the Democrats become the law and order party?
Hmm... let's see. Obama supports a law ostensibly protecting kids from predators, but it turns out the law actually promotes "comprehensive" sex education for kindergarteners.
But, before you get to kindergarten, you have to live a few years. Obama also opposed a bill requiring doctors to provide care for babies who happen to survive abortion.
So, I guess we can say Obama supports killing the kids before we protect them.
Close - A McCain supporter rapes you, Palin makes you pay for the rape kit so the McCain supporter can be put in jail, then Palin forces you to give birth to the McCain supporter's child. It might even be worse - a judge in Alaska may rule that you owe the McCain supporter visits to see his "child."
It's absolutely ridiculous to draw the conclusion that Palin could or would force someone in this situation to carry the baby to term. She herself acknowledges it's a personal choice and her choice is prolife. We've had lots of prolifer's as Presidents. Calm down.
What's worse is the title: "Sarah Palin will rape your daughter." People don't realize that they can't convince anyone of something when they go so over the top.
Call me convinced. You're an idiot by the way. Anyone who took the title literally and expected to see anything that would conclude that Sarah "The McCainiac" Palin is going to rape your daughter probably needs to be shot. Now.
Obviously you don't watch the news. Sarah Palin has went out and said NUMEROUS times that she is against abortion EVEN in cases of rape or incest and that she would, indeed, force the rape victim to carry the child to term. Sarah Palin is indeed worse than Lawrence Singleton.
anyone who thinks they have any say on what you should have the right to do with your body is a crazy nosy asshole who needs to find better things to do than glorify an already over populated race..THIN OUT THE HERD PEOPLE...canobolism- saving the planet
Wow, pretty amazing. The only thing you can see is the fertilized ovum... a single cell smaller than the diameter of a strand of hair. The young victim can rot as far as you're concerned.
That "tiny human" as you call it, is a single, non-sentient cell. It is no more a person than any of the millions of skin cells I shed every time I take a shower.
How about people just get the fuck over it and stop bitching about it both ways. Right now, we have two extremes. The middle ground is a great place to be.
It is unbelievable how Americans COMPLETELY miss the basic arguments over issues.
The question over abortion is not when conception occurs, and all that bull. That is all IRRELEVANT.
The key argument is that women have a RIGHT TO THEIR BODIES. When men agree with the state having the right to cut their penises off, then we can talk further.
Actually, life is the entire subject. Control over your body? Contraception and abstinence not good enough?
An action like copulation has consequences. With freedom comes responsibility.
Study Roe v Wade a bit. Note how the justices said the question of conception and life could not be decided. Then they decided anyway, prioritizing an unenumerated right to privacy over an enumerated right to due process. Astounding.
If people want to abort, we at least ought to call it what it is: killing.
"Actually, life is the entire subject. Control over your body? Contraception and abstinence not good enough?"
Wow, Roger, you're an idiot. We're talking about RAPE here. What's the young girl going to do? Ask her rapist to put on a condom before he violates her?
The problem with Right-wing zealots is that they think that their way is the only way. People should have choices. Don't believe in abortion? DON'T HAVE ONE. It's as simple as that.
You are talking about rape, as though it is the entire basis and justification for all abortions. It is not.
Sure, rape happens, and it is awful. And if someone said there ought to be abortions allowed in such cases, there would be a discussion to be had. Maybe even compromise.
But, abortion defenders insist there be no restrictions on abortion at all. That it ought to be on demand, and government funded, for any reason at any time. Up to birth, and even beyond.
Maybe even compromise? So if its date rape and the girl knows her attacker then she should be forced to keep it while in other cases she has to sit down with someone and convince them that the brutalization was horrid enough to give her the freedom of choice? No restrictions? What do you call mandatory counseling, waiting periods, phsyc exams and parental notification? For some one your age you sure have an immature and arrogant viewpoint.
You have no concept of compromise, nor of analysis. You simply leap to hyperbole.
Restrictions such as parental notification and such have been proposed, but get shot down at every turn. For the abortion cult, there is no compromise.
All I ask personally is to recognize abortion as the destruction of human life. Nothing more.
Presumably this is because you believe that the embryo has a soul at conception.Odd.After conception a blastocyst can separate into twins or triplets or quads.Did the initial blstocyst have four souls that got handed out after the separation or did one soul split up?Where do I get the references for this "soul math"?Further more one twin can absorb the other even further into the gestational process.Does this mean that such a baby would be born with two souls?If not where does the other one go?
Find me a man who would give up there medical rights in any case. High risk for prostate cancer? Sorry can't take that out, it's against the law. Over sixty? No Viagra for you, against the law(who will take care of the baby if you make one then die?). Single and want to adopt? Nope, against the law. Take away ONE personal freedom, and you open the door to have them all obliterated. The way to stop abortions is through sex education and good quality woman's health care, not through an archaic law
Presumably this is because you believe that the embryo has a soul at conception.Odd.After conception a blastocyst can separate into twins or triplets or quads.Did the initial blstocyst have four souls that got handed out after the separation or did one soul split up?Where do I get the references for this "soul math"?Further more one twin can absorb the other even further into the gestational process.Does this mean that such a baby would be born with two souls?If not where does the other one go?
And when is a group of cells a human? When it is a group of 150 non-descript cells with no organs form or limbs? When it has arm buds and a "tail" but no functional eyes or heart or brainwaves? A mentally competent person has a Constitutional right to determine the kind of medical treatment they will receive. The person may also decide what type of treatment they will NOT receive. These rights were confirmed by the United States Supreme Court in the Cruzan case, which was decided in 1990.
Then scratching your ass is a virtual holocaust of potential humans.Idiotic.This issue has nothing to do with left or right(much as your simple mind would like to make everything this simple)it has to do with a woman who was raped and became pregnant or a woman who knows her child will starve to death if she keeps it.Clearly youve never been closer than the lifetime movie of the weak to anyone effected by this issue or decoision.True conservatives dont want govt intervention in personal choice.
And what sort of cells cover your particular ass? Apparently not your own.
You have no idea who I am or what I have experienced, so get of that arrogant high horse of yours. And don't even begin to lecture me on what a "true" conservative is.
How do you or anyone "know" a child will starve to death if it is born? Who are you to judge the value of a life, whatever the circumstances of its birth?
"I suppose if a cell comes from a human being it is itself human."Your words.That would mean skin cells too by your own definition. That was my point."Who are you to judge the value of a life, whatever the circumstances of its birth?"Funny thats exactly what your doing by telling a woman she has no choice.Pretty glaring double standard youve got there junior."You have no idea..."So youve counceled someone through this procedure and still want to take away there choice? Now whos on a high horse?
And if I put a group of 150 skin cells, or liver cells, or intestinal cells next to a 150 cell embryo next to each other you would only be able to pick out the embryo by pure chance. Likewise if I put six pregnant women in a line up you would only pick out the rape victim by pure chance. My point is that unless it's you that's faced with the situation you have no right to give input. You have no say and shouldn't. Neither should I. All options and the best care should be the only pretext.
There are twin girls living just down the street. Known them for years, and I'll be damned if I can yet tell them apart at first glance. Still, I think if you attempted to exterminate one of them, there might be objections.
Regarding your hypothetical cell clumps, only one of them will ever grow up to have children of her or his own. A miracle!
Have you ever been aborted? Thought not. So, maybe you don't have the right of input.
And half of all pregnancies are spontaneously aborted -- ask all of the women who actually want to half children but miscarry, and this is only a small fraction -- so clearly life in the early stages does not mean much. If you believe in God, then you must then God is the biggest abortionist of all.
And what about all of those tender, thoughtful parents who want to have children and can't? How does that fit into God's plan?
Is there a point you are trying to make? That death is no big deal? Or that life is no big deal? Or God is evil? Or people ought not to desire children, lest they be disappointed?
Who ever suggested to you life would be some free pass?
My point is that there are many reasons why a pregnancy might not come to full term, and elective abortion is only one of them. In fact, it's not even the main reason. Who are you to decide for others which pregnancies should continue? Are you God? And if God is letting millions of fetuses a year abort spontaneously, than He clearly is not worried about the sanctity of life. And don't give me any "God's plan" baloney. God is omnipotent, remember?
I am not a Christian, so I do not represent that point of view. My notion is simply to revere life. In fact, all I have really suggested is we simply recognize abortion for what it is: the willful taking of human life.
The whole god vs. anti-god discussion means little to me. We are conscious beings and are capable of seeing reality once in a while.
Surely some abortions are necessary-- ectopic pregnancies, for example.
But, most abortions are for convenience, and we ought to say so.
There is nothing convenient about any of it and you continue to show that you are very far removed from the realities faced by the parties involved. It's not convenient. It's not easy. It's not a decision made on a whim. It is not the preferred method of contraception for any demographic group of women. And in places in S America where the practice is illegal the rate of abortion per capita is actually higher.
Then one would have to conclude most abortions are done out of dire necessity. But, I don't find any evidence to support this either.
More than 1 million medically necessary abortions per year? Not hardly.
No, I think convenience is a major factor. Sure, it is not the preferred method of contraception, but it is a fallback for otherwise imprudent behaviour. It facilitates promiscuity.
Your necessity is not someone elses, as your definition of life is not someone elses. Your lack of empathy and understanding is overwhelming. It must be sad to live as you do without being able to see things that don't fit into your little bubble of existence.
Personal denigration is forcing someone to carry the child of the person who sexually assaulted them, not pointing out the fallacy of there logic. If you consider being passionate about personal freedoms vitriolic how would you characterize those who actually won those rights for the citizens of this country through protest and war-antagonistic at best? Come on.
Well,I suspect the best efforts in securing our rights came from 1) the founding fathers eternal debates that one long summer, and 2) the blood shed by so many, over so many.
Of course I empathize with victims of crimes. But, if the price to pay for emotional relief is a million dead each year, perhaps we need to reevaluate the meaning of "empathy".
"Is Gos willing to prevent evil, but not able? The he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God" ---- Epicurus
An unformed group of cells should be protected but the raped woman who has an abortion should be treated as a criminal? I'm afraid your still saddled and ready to ride into the sunset of the high and mighty Ace. Until your willing to accept the legislation of your private life you shouldn't be so gung-ho about dictating the freedoms of others. I thought conservatives wanted smaller government not one that prys its way into every nook and cranny?40% increase in the size of govt anyone?
Right, government has grown dramatically. Thus, we need to abort more babies. Fascinating train of thought you offer.
If someone violates a woman, she automatically has the right to kill a baby. Seems fair enough, unless you happen to be the baby.
But wait, there's more! Not only do rape victims get to kill, in fact any woman can kill for any reason whatever, right up until the baby breathes on its own.
Kill on a whim, but for the baby-- zero. Nada. Zilch.
ImTheGrey,you are so right.These prolifers do not seem to care about the life of the rape/incest victims-at all!It seems as if they would like to throw them away,after they get done bearing their attackers child,or their own sibling,or grandchild for their incestous father.I am a nurse I see this all the time.These girls must have options!Prolifers need to quit judging people go volunteer in an orphanage,a womans shelter,or a nursing home,there they can actually help Life!
The really sick part is that I would be willing to bet a week's salary on the fact that RogerNeverRight is just fine with the death penalty. Kill retarded people who commit crimes but don't give rape victims a choice when it comes to their body. It should also be pointed out that many of these people want abstinence only sexual education(which just leads to increases in unprotected anal and oral sex) and limits on the availability of contraceptives. Its all totally idiotic and backward.
For the record, am a personally opposed to capital punishment. Not that it matters, as your speculation is an irrelevant attempt at personal invective.
The rape victim argument is a rouse, as I pointed out.
Also for the record, "comprehensive" sex education has been the norm for decades, everywhere. It has been accompanied by a dramatic increase in sexually transmitted disease and teenage pregnancy. And, of course, abortions.
I am glad to hear that you are opposed to capital punishment.A huge majority on the right promote it without question and I made an assumption that you too would share this view.I apologize.There is a correlation between sex ed and the rise of stds.There has also been a dramatic rise in the amount of hormone used in beef and dairy cattle as well as an increase in the idea among teens that oral sex and anal sex are not "sex".My point is that correlation is not causation.
There have bee n several studies done and the result of abstinence only teaching is that kids are 40% more likely to engage in anal sex and 60% more likely to engage in oral sex. Considering abstinence only either teaches nothing about condemns or that they don't work the rate of spread of stds in this group is also higher. That's not just correlation that's specific cause and effect.
I do agree abstinence-only education is not reasonable. However, abstinence is certainly an obviously desirable behaviour for children. But, they need to understand the consequences of bad behaviour.
YEAH! If you behave badly, you deserve to be raped! And then forced to bare the child! And have the opportunity for a healthy life stripped of you by Republicans! YEAH! Go McCainiacs!
Abortions among U.S. teens are down, it's the older and often poorer women seeking them now. Comprehensive sex ed is not being taught. What is being taught is to stay away from the water. The reason STD's are at a high is because if you don't teach a child to swim, and they go near the water anyway, they will drown. And those kids who don't know how to use condoms will contract STD's.
she also had Wasilla charge rape victims for their own rape investigation kits rather than how the rest of Alaska (and the world) did it using tax money. This cost the girl or her family about $1200. if they wanted to try to go after the perp.
Great video!! I'm not surprised at the Palin lovers cheering her on. Conservatives have no compassion and no conscience. They don't care about a 15-year-old, raped, tortured and left for dead.
This might have been a good ad but when you say she will rape your daughter your credibility goes in the tank. GO SARAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No more ignorant rednecks in the white house please.
It is unbelievable how Americans COMPLETELY miss the basic arguments over issues.
The question over abortion is not when conception occurs, that is IRRELEVANT.
The key argument is that women have a RIGHT TO THEIR BODIES. When men agree with the state having the right to cut their penises off, then we can talk further.
THANK YOU! I thought I was the only one. Find me a man, any man, who would give up there medical rights in any case. High risk for prostate cancer? Sorry can't take that out, it's against the law. Over sixty? No Viagra for you, against the law. Single and want to adopt? Nope, against the law. Take away ONE personal freedom, and you open the door to have them all obliterated.
I hope a sled full of Eskimos gang rapes every Palin child,including the tard... after clubbing Sarah and Todd like seals of course. They could use Sarahs sun-dried skin to make whimsical native dolls, souvenirs that will be sold to republican hunters and the spawn they created via the missionary position.
mintvagoo 3 years ago
Wow what a bunch of progaganda bullshit.
oopsibrokethecow 3 years ago
LETS STICK A 200 LB MOOSE UP HER CUNT
60democrats 3 years ago
lulz
TheXboxHobo 2 years ago
that was a nice smear... 100th comment!
suspendmeassholes 3 years ago
Sweet! You win the grand prize!
dsf3g 2 years ago
Yay!
suspendmeassholes 2 years ago
what else can people say about her, she is nothing but a sick bastard who deserves to rot in hell.
idontsignin 3 years ago 8
she is worse than singleton
idontsignin 3 years ago 7
Dun Dun Dun
simplebowman 3 years ago
This is foolish.
Hickey66 3 years ago
HAHA ya I think shes movin on up to an Alaska in the sky where the big old moose will cry!cry! cry! LOL
GodKillerAtheist 3 years ago
well done! great response to Republican ads!! and you didn't have to bend the truth at all, as the Republicans do time and time again. if we must resort to fear-mongering, we must adhere to the truth!
fraklein 3 years ago
if abortion is ever completely illegal i wonder if people will go around raping other people just to spread their seed.
ManicMuppets 3 years ago
At least abortion is worst than rape. So i go for the lesser evil which is rape.
DoradoGate 3 years ago
I don't like her! I would vote for Obama, but unfort. I'm not american...
MarkusPeters1974 3 years ago
Not to worry. There are plenty of deluded socialists here in America who will vote in your stead.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Don't vote for Obama. He's a Negroid
DoradoGate 3 years ago
Fuck you
formula8888 3 years ago
Fuck you more
DoradoGate 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I said Fuck You; don't repeat me..
formula8888 3 years ago
Fuck You 2x
DoradoGate 3 years ago
I kinda feel bad for Palin, she constantly humiates herself. I like her as a person, but not as a Vice President at all
MaryEWinstead1fan 3 years ago
Well, given that she is not actually the Vice President, how can that be a reason not to like her?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
1) Palin has repeatedly and very openly admitted that her policy would be a strict pro-life policy. If she became president it is obvious that this would be a policy she would try to pass down to the rest of America.
2) Did anyone else feel like this guy's voice was eerily similar to the guy from the Saw movies?... "Hello Sarah, I want to play a game..." Creepy!
middlemanforever 3 years ago
Many people feel Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. As a matter of law alone, it was a terrible decision.
Still, if it was overturned, each state would simply pass their own laws.
Now, if you really believe most Americans do support abortion, what is there to worry about? Wouldn't the normal democratic process take care of this?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
You forgot that Palin would also charge her for the rape kit. Why does Palin support rapists? I find her support for rapists to be disgusting.
stompied 3 years ago 5
Right. I have heard her speak many times on this, supporting rapists. Clearly, being a conservative, she must be in favour of rape. Rape is good, right? Isn't it?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
Claiming she supports rape is over the top. More accurately, she is soft on rapists. Why this is so is curious. Typically, conservatives are law and order. Then again, McCain came out against programs to protect young kids from sexual predators. How did the Democrats become the law and order party?
stompied 3 years ago 2
Hmm... let's see. Obama supports a law ostensibly protecting kids from predators, but it turns out the law actually promotes "comprehensive" sex education for kindergarteners.
But, before you get to kindergarten, you have to live a few years. Obama also opposed a bill requiring doctors to provide care for babies who happen to survive abortion.
So, I guess we can say Obama supports killing the kids before we protect them.
Is that about right?
See how that works?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
Close - A McCain supporter rapes you, Palin makes you pay for the rape kit so the McCain supporter can be put in jail, then Palin forces you to give birth to the McCain supporter's child. It might even be worse - a judge in Alaska may rule that you owe the McCain supporter visits to see his "child."
stompied 3 years ago
Well I like her a lot better now. Murder is wrong.
Repent2God 3 years ago
I with you. I don't really care for murder. Rape I guess I can live with. There is no god though.
andresposse 3 years ago
That's insane. Sara Palin is far too extreme. There's no way in hell I'd ever vote for someone with her ridged beliefs.
AllThingsGruesome 3 years ago 3
It's absolutely ridiculous to draw the conclusion that Palin could or would force someone in this situation to carry the baby to term. She herself acknowledges it's a personal choice and her choice is prolife. We've had lots of prolifer's as Presidents. Calm down.
mrsrealitycheck 3 years ago
What's worse is the title: "Sarah Palin will rape your daughter." People don't realize that they can't convince anyone of something when they go so over the top.
TheLMack 3 years ago
Call me convinced. You're an idiot by the way. Anyone who took the title literally and expected to see anything that would conclude that Sarah "The McCainiac" Palin is going to rape your daughter probably needs to be shot. Now.
bieliebiel 3 years ago
Obviously you don't watch the news. Sarah Palin has went out and said NUMEROUS times that she is against abortion EVEN in cases of rape or incest and that she would, indeed, force the rape victim to carry the child to term. Sarah Palin is indeed worse than Lawrence Singleton.
Headhunter004 3 years ago
anyone who thinks they have any say on what you should have the right to do with your body is a crazy nosy asshole who needs to find better things to do than glorify an already over populated race..THIN OUT THE HERD PEOPLE...canobolism- saving the planet
vikkitikkitoria 3 years ago
you are sick. how about we start thinning the herd by getting rid of you?
babsoc5 3 years ago
a dinosaur should rape palin's daughter. that'll show her.
silverlament 3 years ago
So, there we have it. We are all responsible for the circumstances of our conception.
If you were conceived in the wrong way, you must die.
Elect Obama, he will put to death all children who were born alive, if the Leftist mob so wishes it.
Will he use a guillotine? Or just leave them to die alone in a dirty linen closet, as was the practice he defended in Illinois?
Is there any fundamental difference between this rapist and Obama's Marxists?
Now do you see how hyperbole works?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
Wow, pretty amazing. The only thing you can see is the fertilized ovum... a single cell smaller than the diameter of a strand of hair. The young victim can rot as far as you're concerned.
dsf3g 3 years ago
And that tiny human, smaller than a hair, is somehow responsible for the circumstances of its conception.
That young victim can rot as far as you are concerned.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
That "tiny human" as you call it, is a single, non-sentient cell. It is no more a person than any of the millions of skin cells I shed every time I take a shower.
dsf3g 3 years ago
Except those cells you shed in the shower have zero chance of developing into an adult human.
Come to think of it, the rest of your cells seem to suffer that same fate. I would tell you to grow up, but clearly that is pointless.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
so I guess you never masturbate?
shakemasta 3 years ago
@dsf3g except they dont grow into another human....
MBPKyle 1 year ago
Roger, I am smarter than any person you have ever met. Smart people understand that moderate liberal ideas are best.
ihateuutube 3 years ago
Except that "moderate liberals" are hardly liberal. Or moderate.
I suppose you imagine Obama is a moderate liberal?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
How about people just get the fuck over it and stop bitching about it both ways. Right now, we have two extremes. The middle ground is a great place to be.
iloveasianfoskco 3 years ago
Referring to an embryo as human life is hardly extreme, unless you are of the intractable Left.
You can compromise yourself right out of existence, all in the name of moderation.
That is, some principles actually count for something.
Do you have a principle for which you might fight?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
It is unbelievable how Americans COMPLETELY miss the basic arguments over issues.
The question over abortion is not when conception occurs, and all that bull. That is all IRRELEVANT.
The key argument is that women have a RIGHT TO THEIR BODIES. When men agree with the state having the right to cut their penises off, then we can talk further.
Until then, WOMEN OWN THEIR BODIES.
xcronopio 3 years ago 5
Actually, life is the entire subject. Control over your body? Contraception and abstinence not good enough?
An action like copulation has consequences. With freedom comes responsibility.
Study Roe v Wade a bit. Note how the justices said the question of conception and life could not be decided. Then they decided anyway, prioritizing an unenumerated right to privacy over an enumerated right to due process. Astounding.
If people want to abort, we at least ought to call it what it is: killing.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
"Actually, life is the entire subject. Control over your body? Contraception and abstinence not good enough?"
Wow, Roger, you're an idiot. We're talking about RAPE here. What's the young girl going to do? Ask her rapist to put on a condom before he violates her?
The problem with Right-wing zealots is that they think that their way is the only way. People should have choices. Don't believe in abortion? DON'T HAVE ONE. It's as simple as that.
axemmidnightblue 3 years ago 3
You are talking about rape, as though it is the entire basis and justification for all abortions. It is not.
Sure, rape happens, and it is awful. And if someone said there ought to be abortions allowed in such cases, there would be a discussion to be had. Maybe even compromise.
But, abortion defenders insist there be no restrictions on abortion at all. That it ought to be on demand, and government funded, for any reason at any time. Up to birth, and even beyond.
Is that what you argue here?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
Maybe even compromise? So if its date rape and the girl knows her attacker then she should be forced to keep it while in other cases she has to sit down with someone and convince them that the brutalization was horrid enough to give her the freedom of choice? No restrictions? What do you call mandatory counseling, waiting periods, phsyc exams and parental notification? For some one your age you sure have an immature and arrogant viewpoint.
ImTheGrey 3 years ago
You have no concept of compromise, nor of analysis. You simply leap to hyperbole.
Restrictions such as parental notification and such have been proposed, but get shot down at every turn. For the abortion cult, there is no compromise.
All I ask personally is to recognize abortion as the destruction of human life. Nothing more.
Such a hard case am I.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
Hate to say it, but "Rape" has nothing to do with having control over your body, you fucking idiot.
iloveasianfoskco 3 years ago
Rape has nothing to do with control over your body?
Who's an idiot?
That is one of the most blatantly false statements I've ever read. Of course rape has to do with control over your body. Are you seriously that dumb?
sacredlunatic 3 years ago
look up the definition. Your wrong.
hypermonkey26 3 years ago
Presumably this is because you believe that the embryo has a soul at conception.Odd.After conception a blastocyst can separate into twins or triplets or quads.Did the initial blstocyst have four souls that got handed out after the separation or did one soul split up?Where do I get the references for this "soul math"?Further more one twin can absorb the other even further into the gestational process.Does this mean that such a baby would be born with two souls?If not where does the other one go?
ImTheGrey 3 years ago
I suppose if you are a Christian or some such, this might be an important question. Pointless, but interesting in some respect.
Not applicable in my case, however.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
Find me a man who would give up there medical rights in any case. High risk for prostate cancer? Sorry can't take that out, it's against the law. Over sixty? No Viagra for you, against the law(who will take care of the baby if you make one then die?). Single and want to adopt? Nope, against the law. Take away ONE personal freedom, and you open the door to have them all obliterated. The way to stop abortions is through sex education and good quality woman's health care, not through an archaic law
ImTheGrey 3 years ago
only problem is that men's issues don't involve a baby.
Johnkim510 3 years ago
Presumably this is because you believe that the embryo has a soul at conception.Odd.After conception a blastocyst can separate into twins or triplets or quads.Did the initial blstocyst have four souls that got handed out after the separation or did one soul split up?Where do I get the references for this "soul math"?Further more one twin can absorb the other even further into the gestational process.Does this mean that such a baby would be born with two souls?If not where does the other one go?
ImTheGrey 3 years ago 2
Asked and answered.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
Medical rights? Do babies have medical rights?
Where in the Constitution is there a mention of "medical rights"?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
And when is a group of cells a human? When it is a group of 150 non-descript cells with no organs form or limbs? When it has arm buds and a "tail" but no functional eyes or heart or brainwaves? A mentally competent person has a Constitutional right to determine the kind of medical treatment they will receive. The person may also decide what type of treatment they will NOT receive. These rights were confirmed by the United States Supreme Court in the Cruzan case, which was decided in 1990.
ImTheGrey 3 years ago
I suppose if a cell comes from a human being, it is itself human. Conscious or not.
Not too complex, is it?
But, I suppose it is in a Leftist's political interest to dehumanize the unborn as much as possible.
It makes gratuitous killing easy for the killer. Eases the conscience a bit.
All for the good of humanity, of course.
After all, it was a humanitarian sentiment that brought about the euthanasia of the early 20th century.
"Conscious" and "conscience" are clearly not the same thing.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
Then scratching your ass is a virtual holocaust of potential humans.Idiotic.This issue has nothing to do with left or right(much as your simple mind would like to make everything this simple)it has to do with a woman who was raped and became pregnant or a woman who knows her child will starve to death if she keeps it.Clearly youve never been closer than the lifetime movie of the weak to anyone effected by this issue or decoision.True conservatives dont want govt intervention in personal choice.
ImTheGrey 3 years ago
And what sort of cells cover your particular ass? Apparently not your own.
You have no idea who I am or what I have experienced, so get of that arrogant high horse of yours. And don't even begin to lecture me on what a "true" conservative is.
How do you or anyone "know" a child will starve to death if it is born? Who are you to judge the value of a life, whatever the circumstances of its birth?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
"I suppose if a cell comes from a human being it is itself human."Your words.That would mean skin cells too by your own definition. That was my point."Who are you to judge the value of a life, whatever the circumstances of its birth?"Funny thats exactly what your doing by telling a woman she has no choice.Pretty glaring double standard youve got there junior."You have no idea..."So youve counceled someone through this procedure and still want to take away there choice? Now whos on a high horse?
ImTheGrey 3 years ago 2
Skin cells are quite different from fertilized embryos. At least, to most of us.
And, circumstances of conception and birth are far more innocent than the unfortunate happenstance of a crime.
But, by your measure of compassion and justice, the unborn child is effectively the criminal, and punished as such.
So there we leave our relative high horses.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
And if I put a group of 150 skin cells, or liver cells, or intestinal cells next to a 150 cell embryo next to each other you would only be able to pick out the embryo by pure chance. Likewise if I put six pregnant women in a line up you would only pick out the rape victim by pure chance. My point is that unless it's you that's faced with the situation you have no right to give input. You have no say and shouldn't. Neither should I. All options and the best care should be the only pretext.
ImTheGrey 3 years ago
There are twin girls living just down the street. Known them for years, and I'll be damned if I can yet tell them apart at first glance. Still, I think if you attempted to exterminate one of them, there might be objections.
Regarding your hypothetical cell clumps, only one of them will ever grow up to have children of her or his own. A miracle!
Have you ever been aborted? Thought not. So, maybe you don't have the right of input.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
And half of all pregnancies are spontaneously aborted -- ask all of the women who actually want to half children but miscarry, and this is only a small fraction -- so clearly life in the early stages does not mean much. If you believe in God, then you must then God is the biggest abortionist of all.
And what about all of those tender, thoughtful parents who want to have children and can't? How does that fit into God's plan?
MetricSU 3 years ago
Is there a point you are trying to make? That death is no big deal? Or that life is no big deal? Or God is evil? Or people ought not to desire children, lest they be disappointed?
Who ever suggested to you life would be some free pass?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
My point is that there are many reasons why a pregnancy might not come to full term, and elective abortion is only one of them. In fact, it's not even the main reason. Who are you to decide for others which pregnancies should continue? Are you God? And if God is letting millions of fetuses a year abort spontaneously, than He clearly is not worried about the sanctity of life. And don't give me any "God's plan" baloney. God is omnipotent, remember?
MetricSU 3 years ago
I am not a Christian, so I do not represent that point of view. My notion is simply to revere life. In fact, all I have really suggested is we simply recognize abortion for what it is: the willful taking of human life.
The whole god vs. anti-god discussion means little to me. We are conscious beings and are capable of seeing reality once in a while.
Surely some abortions are necessary-- ectopic pregnancies, for example.
But, most abortions are for convenience, and we ought to say so.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
There is nothing convenient about any of it and you continue to show that you are very far removed from the realities faced by the parties involved. It's not convenient. It's not easy. It's not a decision made on a whim. It is not the preferred method of contraception for any demographic group of women. And in places in S America where the practice is illegal the rate of abortion per capita is actually higher.
ImTheGrey 3 years ago
Then one would have to conclude most abortions are done out of dire necessity. But, I don't find any evidence to support this either.
More than 1 million medically necessary abortions per year? Not hardly.
No, I think convenience is a major factor. Sure, it is not the preferred method of contraception, but it is a fallback for otherwise imprudent behaviour. It facilitates promiscuity.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
Your necessity is not someone elses, as your definition of life is not someone elses. Your lack of empathy and understanding is overwhelming. It must be sad to live as you do without being able to see things that don't fit into your little bubble of existence.
ImTheGrey 3 years ago
My "little bubble of existence" is simply a reflection of your narrow view of our me. Our priorities differ.
You seem incapable of discussing this without personal denigration. Yet, you say I am the one without empathy.
If this is truly overwhelming to you, then give it up. You clearly are not going to convince me of much.
Anyone else reading this is likely to decide your personal vitriol undermines your credibility, unless the simply agree with you already.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
Personal denigration is forcing someone to carry the child of the person who sexually assaulted them, not pointing out the fallacy of there logic. If you consider being passionate about personal freedoms vitriolic how would you characterize those who actually won those rights for the citizens of this country through protest and war-antagonistic at best? Come on.
ImTheGrey 3 years ago
Well,I suspect the best efforts in securing our rights came from 1) the founding fathers eternal debates that one long summer, and 2) the blood shed by so many, over so many.
Of course I empathize with victims of crimes. But, if the price to pay for emotional relief is a million dead each year, perhaps we need to reevaluate the meaning of "empathy".
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
"Is Gos willing to prevent evil, but not able? The he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God" ---- Epicurus
ImTheGrey 3 years ago
An unformed group of cells should be protected but the raped woman who has an abortion should be treated as a criminal? I'm afraid your still saddled and ready to ride into the sunset of the high and mighty Ace. Until your willing to accept the legislation of your private life you shouldn't be so gung-ho about dictating the freedoms of others. I thought conservatives wanted smaller government not one that prys its way into every nook and cranny?40% increase in the size of govt anyone?
ImTheGrey 3 years ago
Right, government has grown dramatically. Thus, we need to abort more babies. Fascinating train of thought you offer.
If someone violates a woman, she automatically has the right to kill a baby. Seems fair enough, unless you happen to be the baby.
But wait, there's more! Not only do rape victims get to kill, in fact any woman can kill for any reason whatever, right up until the baby breathes on its own.
Kill on a whim, but for the baby-- zero. Nada. Zilch.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
ImTheGrey,you are so right.These prolifers do not seem to care about the life of the rape/incest victims-at all!It seems as if they would like to throw them away,after they get done bearing their attackers child,or their own sibling,or grandchild for their incestous father.I am a nurse I see this all the time.These girls must have options!Prolifers need to quit judging people go volunteer in an orphanage,a womans shelter,or a nursing home,there they can actually help Life!
dagger4ureye 3 years ago
The really sick part is that I would be willing to bet a week's salary on the fact that RogerNeverRight is just fine with the death penalty. Kill retarded people who commit crimes but don't give rape victims a choice when it comes to their body. It should also be pointed out that many of these people want abstinence only sexual education(which just leads to increases in unprotected anal and oral sex) and limits on the availability of contraceptives. Its all totally idiotic and backward.
ImTheGrey 3 years ago
For the record, am a personally opposed to capital punishment. Not that it matters, as your speculation is an irrelevant attempt at personal invective.
The rape victim argument is a rouse, as I pointed out.
Also for the record, "comprehensive" sex education has been the norm for decades, everywhere. It has been accompanied by a dramatic increase in sexually transmitted disease and teenage pregnancy. And, of course, abortions.
Which of course is totally idiotic and backward.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
I am glad to hear that you are opposed to capital punishment.A huge majority on the right promote it without question and I made an assumption that you too would share this view.I apologize.There is a correlation between sex ed and the rise of stds.There has also been a dramatic rise in the amount of hormone used in beef and dairy cattle as well as an increase in the idea among teens that oral sex and anal sex are not "sex".My point is that correlation is not causation.
ImTheGrey 3 years ago
Right, yet you presume there is causation of STD from the teaching of abstinence.
So, while correlation does not prove causation, non-correlation specifically disproves it.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
There have bee n several studies done and the result of abstinence only teaching is that kids are 40% more likely to engage in anal sex and 60% more likely to engage in oral sex. Considering abstinence only either teaches nothing about condemns or that they don't work the rate of spread of stds in this group is also higher. That's not just correlation that's specific cause and effect.
ImTheGrey 3 years ago
I do agree abstinence-only education is not reasonable. However, abstinence is certainly an obviously desirable behaviour for children. But, they need to understand the consequences of bad behaviour.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
YEAH! If you behave badly, you deserve to be raped! And then forced to bare the child! And have the opportunity for a healthy life stripped of you by Republicans! YEAH! Go McCainiacs!
bieliebiel 3 years ago
Excuse me, ...BEAR the child..
bieliebiel 3 years ago
Why would anyone force you to remove your child's clothes?
Seems a bit odd.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
Abortions among U.S. teens are down, it's the older and often poorer women seeking them now. Comprehensive sex ed is not being taught. What is being taught is to stay away from the water. The reason STD's are at a high is because if you don't teach a child to swim, and they go near the water anyway, they will drown. And those kids who don't know how to use condoms will contract STD's.
JRpec 3 years ago
And if Obama is elected a woman could try to abort a viable fetus, fail and let it die in a closet. Life begins at CONCEPTION and murder is murder.
B17MIKE 3 years ago
Thanks for making this video. The Dems should be doing this but...
charlie1der 3 years ago
she also had Wasilla charge rape victims for their own rape investigation kits rather than how the rest of Alaska (and the world) did it using tax money. This cost the girl or her family about $1200. if they wanted to try to go after the perp.
beenybutterfly 3 years ago 3
Your wrong, man, she is who I think she is.
She's a bitch.
cruelht 3 years ago 2
Great video!! I'm not surprised at the Palin lovers cheering her on. Conservatives have no compassion and no conscience. They don't care about a 15-year-old, raped, tortured and left for dead.
kittyweese 3 years ago 4
goooo Sarahhhhhhh, next vice president of the USA you are awesome!!!!!! I am so proud that a real woman is going for that position
ambdc 3 years ago
This might have been a good ad but when you say she will rape your daughter your credibility goes in the tank. GO SARAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gumby83854 3 years ago
Yeah, sorry. That was a typo. What I meant to write was: "Sarah Palin will field-dress your daughter like a dead moose."
dsf3g 3 years ago
oh you ignorant people. I feel so sorry for your lack of education, and I am not talking about school education.
jonnyrueda 3 years ago
No more ignorant rednecks in the white house please.
It is unbelievable how Americans COMPLETELY miss the basic arguments over issues.
The question over abortion is not when conception occurs, that is IRRELEVANT.
The key argument is that women have a RIGHT TO THEIR BODIES. When men agree with the state having the right to cut their penises off, then we can talk further.
xcronopio 3 years ago 4
THANK YOU! I thought I was the only one. Find me a man, any man, who would give up there medical rights in any case. High risk for prostate cancer? Sorry can't take that out, it's against the law. Over sixty? No Viagra for you, against the law. Single and want to adopt? Nope, against the law. Take away ONE personal freedom, and you open the door to have them all obliterated.
ImTheGrey 3 years ago