Seriously... how can you support ABORTIONS????

[Krazy4Kobe]

If we can kill cows and chickens and pigs and fish for food....why can't we kill humans for food?
(we already kill each other for plenty of stupid reason!)

There are plenty of documented cases of cannibalism in the natural world.
Is it just because we humans think we are so darn special that we should all be kept alive?

We consider it a tragedy if a mountain lion kills and eats a human, but a trophy if a human kills a mountain lion.

Just sayin'....humans are a pretty F'ed up crowd.

 

[SpexyAshleigh]

Here's a question for y'all:

A woman has the right to choose. I don't think we can argue that. But does a man have the right to choose, too? If a man decides he wants nothing to do with a baby, should he be allowed to be released from all obligations? That sounds bad, but remember that a woman's right to have an abortion - let's say, despite the protests of her boyfriend/husband - is pretty much unquestioned and anything criticism of it is immediately called archaic and anti-feminist.

The repercussions between a man deciding to not father a child, and a women deciding to not mother a child are far different. A man can simply walk away like the child never existed. For a woman to have an abortion, she needs to deal with the procedure, recovery and emotional consequences that can sometimes affect a woman for a lifetime. And if the father has a right to leave, and the woman does decide to keep her child, he's not only affecting her life but the childs as well.

 

[Krazy4Kobe]

Isn't possession 9/10ths of the law?

Thus the male forgoes any right to that sperm once it has fertilized the ovum inside a woman.
That sperm is now part of the zygote which is physically bonded to the female, ergo it is the woman's property.
She can do with it what she likes.

Unless, of course, laws pertaining to DNA are called into play.
Then it would be best to refer to Grissom. :1orglaugh

 

[Jenkum]

Yet the anti abortion people support going to foreign countries and kill their people defending their own land and way of life.

Good Point
The most vicious anti-abortionists are also the most rabid evangelical, Israel-firsters. They see no problem killing every single child in the middle east, except the Jewish children of course, these nuts are so sick they even think that God wants all these Muslim kids dead. They also would have no problem with killing Homosexuals, Gods will and all that.

 

[Krazy4Kobe]

They also would have no problem with killing Homosexuals, Gods will and all that.

So....if science ever finds a way to discover if a "child", whilst still in the womb, is gay....would it be okay to conduct an abortion, or would the bible thumpers want the "child" to be born first before they murder it in the name of their interpretation of the bible?

Just wondering about such conundrums.

 

[Jenkum]

So....if science ever finds a way to discover if a "child", whilst still in the womb, is gay....would it be okay to conduct an abortion, or would the bible thumpers want the "child" to be born first before they murder it in the name of their interpretation of the bible?

Just wondering about such conundrums.

It is hard to put yourself in the crazy shoes of an evangelical, but I think most would be ok with aborting gay fetuses. But if a woman was raped, she has to have the baby even if it is gay. Bible thimpers deep down think that women who get raped, deserve it. Or maybe they think that God caused the rape, and the child will turn out to be the next Jesus. I wonder if the bible beaters would accept a Gay Jesus?

 

[Krazy4Kobe]

I wonder if the bible beaters would accept a Gay Jesus?

The original JC probably was gay.
He wasn't married, after all. Makes you wonder.
And he was unaccounted for during his formative teen years and experimental twenties....

I vote gay.

 

[Baill Inneraora]

If you call yourself pro life, then surly you can agree that life does not begin at conception, it begins at ejaculation. After all the sperm is alive. Support the bill that makes it a crime to ejaculate anywhere other than into an ovulating female's vagina.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatche...tates/senator-says-life-begins-at-ejaculation

 

[Krazy4Kobe]

That would put nearly the entire teenage male population behind bars! LOL!!!

On that same coin, it should be made law that females start reproducing immediately upon the onset of reproductive-age.
Crime to waste all those eggs!!

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

The repercussions between a man deciding to not father a child, and a women deciding to not mother a child are far different. A man can simply walk away like the child never existed. For a woman to have an abortion, she needs to deal with the procedure, recovery and emotional consequences that can sometimes affect a woman for a lifetime. And if the father has a right to leave, and the woman does decide to keep her child, he's not only affecting her life but the childs as well.

That's just one side of the coin, though. You're completely ignoring the same emotional consequences that can affect a man when he has essentially no say on whether or not he will actually get to see his child. Perhaps I should explain why I'm asking this: I had a friend of mine become pregnant about a year ago and she eventually got an abortion despite the wishes of both her family and the father. The father absolutely wanted the child, but she didn't because she didn't want to have to change her lifestyle. Her lifestyle? Getting drunk everyday and working at Wendy's. Is that fair? Here it was the woman who walked away like the child never existed and the guy who carried all the emotional baggage from the entire ordeal. It simply does not make sense to live in a country that calls for equal rights for everyone, yet when it comes to parenting the woman is given essentially sole control over whether or not the child will be born in the first place. In cases like this, the father should have equal rights to decide his own role in the child's life just like the mom does. It's not sexist or anti-feminist or anything, it's simply equality.

 

[Krazy4Kobe]

That's just one side of the coin, though. You're completely ignoring the same emotional consequences that can affect a man when he has essentially no say on whether or not he will actually get to see his child. Perhaps I should explain why I'm asking this: I had a friend of mine become pregnant about a year ago and she eventually got an abortion despite the wishes of both her family and the father. The father absolutely wanted the child, but she didn't because she didn't want to have to change her lifestyle. Her lifestyle? Getting drunk everyday and working at Wendy's. Is that fair? Here it was the woman who walked away like the child never existed and the guy who carried all the emotional baggage from the entire ordeal. It simply does not make sense to live in a country that calls for equal rights for everyone, yet when it comes to parenting the woman is given essentially sole control over whether or not the child will be born in the first place. In cases like this, the father should have equal rights to decide his own role in the child's life just like the mom does. It's not sexist or anti-feminist or anything, it's simply equality.

Firstly, the way I would look at it, it's HER embryo/fetus et al.
Only AFTER birth does it become partly HIS child.
So until that time, she can choose as she sees fit.

And c'mon, really....what sane person would want to bring a child into this world to a gettin' drunk Wendy's workin' mother anyway???
Yaaahh! We didn't abort! But we did just fuck up three+ lives in the process! Whheeeee!! Having babies is FUN!

And if the fetus is truly considered a person, then why not ask him/her what choice he/she wants?!? LOL!!!

Oh, right, because an embryo isn't really a human being! LOL!!

 

[Sam Fisher]

It’s Okay to Hate Your Baby
How can the valiant cutting edge liberals who run the media continue to push the envelope, even after normalizing abortion? Here’s an idea — normalize hating your baby despite having refrained from killing it in the womb:

The received wisdom is that from the moment a woman learns she is pregnant, a lifelong bond begins to grow, linking mother and child for ever in the strongest possible manifestation of love.

But what if it doesn’t? What if that much-vaunted bond fails to materialise?

Motherhood certainly didn’t provoke the sudden flood of love Ruth Hagin had expected to feel for her baby daughter Sandra.

Instead, she was consumed by anger, resentment and loathing.

‘When Sandra cried, I’m ashamed to say I shouted at her,’ Ruth recalls. ‘I used to pace our flat visualising ways of getting rid of her. I hesitate to say this, but I felt my life would be so much better if she wasn’t here.’

It is a searingly honest — if profoundly shocking — admission, and one for which Ruth is likely to be castigated: mothers who are brave enough to admit to feeling ambivalent about, or even hostile towards, their newborns are often stigmatised

It is a searingly honest — if profoundly shocking — admission, and one for which Ruth is likely to be castigated: mothers who are brave enough to admit to feeling ambivalent about, or even hostile towards, their newborns are often stigmatised.

But a politically correct society doesn’t stigmatize anything unless it is healthy; we are told that “Ruth’s experience is not uncommon” even though “no one finds it easy to accept mothers are capable of loathing their children as much as loving them.”

If lack of maternal affection is a bad thing, why would the Hollyweirdos we are expected to idolize admit to it?

Actress Gwyneth Paltrow has admitted she had ‘no maternal feelings’ for her second baby, Moses, now five.

At least she didn’t name the poor kid Apple.

moonbattery.com

 

[Krazy4Kobe]

What's your point, exactly?

Plenty of species in nature kill their young.
It's been happening waaaaaaayyyyy before us bubbling humans arrived on the scene.

"Oh, no! Mommy doesn't love baby!?!? All she needs more jesus and less Obama!!!"


sammy needs to realize that the human world is so chock-full of human ugliness that it's gagging like a ten-inch deep throat scene...then build a bridge and get over it! :1orglaugh

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

Firstly, the way I would look at it, it's HER embryo/fetus et al.
Only AFTER birth does it become partly HIS child.
So until that time, she can choose as she sees fit.

Ah, but by that logic, the man does not have any responsibility until the child is born, so you just agreed with me.

 

[Krazy4Kobe]

That's just one side of the coin, though. You're completely ignoring the same emotional consequences that can affect a man when he has essentially no say on whether or not he will actually get to see his child. Perhaps I should explain why I'm asking this: I had a friend of mine become pregnant about a year ago and she eventually got an abortion despite the wishes of both her family and the father. The father absolutely wanted the child, but she didn't because she didn't want to have to change her lifestyle. Her lifestyle? Getting drunk everyday and working at Wendy's. Is that fair? Here it was the woman who walked away like the child never existed and the guy who carried all the emotional baggage from the entire ordeal. It simply does not make sense to live in a country that calls for equal rights for everyone, yet when it comes to parenting the woman is given essentially sole control over whether or not the child will be born in the first place. In cases like this, the father should have equal rights to decide his own role in the child's life just like the mom does. It's not sexist or anti-feminist or anything, it's simply equality.

Ah, but by that logic, the man does not have any responsibility until the child is born, so you just agreed with me.

He has no LEGAL responsibility because the fetus -- NOT child -- is not his.

There is NO CHILD in this scenario. NONE.

So, no, I don't agree with your comment.

 

[Sam Fisher]

He has no LEGAL responsibility because the fetus -- NOT child -- is not his.

There is NO CHILD in this scenario. NONE.

So, no, I don't agree with your comment.

Their are court cases where a man as beaten his pregnant wife, and she ended up losing the baby. The man then was charged with murder. Why would he be convicted of murder, if he hadn't killed (as you put it) a baby?

 

[Krazy4Kobe]

Their are court cases where a man as beaten his pregnant wife, and she ended up losing the baby. The man then was charged with murder. Why would he be convicted of murder, if he hadn't killed (as you put it) a baby?

Hmmmm let's see...oh, I know! Perhaps it's because your LAWS are constructed (and interpreted) by people with heavy RELIGIOUS bias.
It's most definitely no secret that america is the single most religious country of the western world.
So much for that First Amendment! LOL!


It'd be awesome if you could actually post a link or two to some of these legal cases you keep rambling on about.
Y'know, just so we can all read for ourselves.


p.s. -- also truly telling of america's stance that close to 200 countries in the world have signed the UN's CRC (which defines "child")....except for two: america and Somalia.
And we all know what happens in Somalia. america is awesome.

 

[Sam Fisher]

K4K, you asked, and here it is.

From protection to punishment

At least 38 of the 50 states across America have introduced fetal homicide laws that were intended to protect pregnant women and their unborn children from violent attacks by third parties – usually abusive male partners – but are increasingly being turned by renegade prosecutors against the women themselves.

South Carolina was one of the first states to introduce such a foetal homicide law. National Advocates for Pregnant Women has found only one case of a South Carolina man who assaulted a pregnant woman having been charged under its terms, and his conviction was eventually overturned. Yet the group estimates there have been up to 300 women arrested for their actions during pregnancy.

In other states laws designed to protect children against the damaging effects of drugs have similarly been twisted to punish childbearers

Notice the law was written as "intended to protect their unborn children!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges

 

[Krazy4Kobe]

K4K, you asked, and here it is.

From protection to punishment

At least 38 of the 50 states across America have introduced fetal homicide laws that were intended to protect pregnant women and their unborn children from violent attacks by third parties – usually abusive male partners – but are increasingly being turned by renegade prosecutors against the women themselves.

South Carolina was one of the first states to introduce such a foetal homicide law. National Advocates for Pregnant Women has found only one case of a South Carolina man who assaulted a pregnant woman having been charged under its terms, and his conviction was eventually overturned. Yet the group estimates there have been up to 300 women arrested for their actions during pregnancy.

In other states laws designed to protect children against the damaging effects of drugs have similarly been twisted to punish childbearers

Notice the law was written as "intended to protect their unborn children!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges

Oh, sammy.

You are such a dumb douche.

Please post the ACTUAL LAW -- NOT an article from a foreign country about the law!!! LOL!!!


p.s. -- see the word prior to "children"? It says UNBORN. Want a definition of that?

Unborn = not yet born
Born = existing as a result of birth
Unborn = not yet existing
Unborn child = a child which does NOT exist!

LOL!!!

You are fun to play with, sammy!

LOL!!!


I'll do the first one for you:

Arkansas: "Unborn child" is defined as a living fetus of 12 weeks or greater gestation.

See, sammy, how unborn and child are grouped together as a single term? LOL!
And also see how your precious 'child' is defined, not as a child, but as a "fetus"?

Here's another one:

Illinois: The laws define "unborn child" as any individual of the human species from fertilization until birth.

Wow!
So here we have two CONFLICTING LAWS defining what a "child" is!!! LOL!!!

Which is it, sammy????
Who is RIGHT????


This just keeps getting more and more entertaining for me!!! LOL!!!

 

[Will E Worm]

Abortions could be illegal soon, with the defunding of "Planned" Parenthood.

Funny how those who are FOR abortions, have already been born.

:yesyes: