[all posts by ham-fisted troll a removed.]
Pro-Life. And I vote.
|by Anonymous||reply 153||11/11/2014|
Good for you. I cancel you.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||09/01/2013|
[quote]Anti-Choice. And I vote.
Fixed it for you.
Nothing ""pro-life" about you people.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||09/01/2013|
I'm totally pro-life but I also think it should be up to the woman whether to carry a fetus to term. It is a decision best left to a woman, her doctor, and her god.
We'll never know when life begins. Let's work to keep abortion safe and rare.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||09/01/2013|
OP, you are a distinct minority. We'll all go on with our lives.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||09/01/2013|
It's the economy, stupid.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||09/01/2013|
What about the children already born who go to bed hungry...what about them?
|by Anonymous||reply 6||09/01/2013|
Nobodys business what anyone does with their body
|by Anonymous||reply 7||09/01/2013|
When artificial wombs exist in the future, unwanted fetuses can be transferred into them and the abortion issue will finally end. Pro-life money ought to flow into research for that.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||09/01/2013|
I campaign actively against the OP, I look forward to a day when women around the globe won't have to be concerned with the buffoonery of those like the OP
|by Anonymous||reply 9||09/01/2013|
I am pro-life too. I tend to vote Democratic, but I support pro-life organizations that help women with crisis pregnancies.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||09/01/2013|
R8, and the children of these said wombs? will they be left to rot in this inconceivable future?
|by Anonymous||reply 11||09/01/2013|
Hey OP: So are you out there every day protesting war and the death penalty? Voting against those things, too? Or just women?
|by Anonymous||reply 12||09/01/2013|
OP meant: Pro-Life. Low IQ. And I vote.
God bless your little heart. Despite your handicap, you still participate in your civic duty. Kudos to you. :)
|by Anonymous||reply 13||09/01/2013|
"Pro-life" = pro-embryo
"Pro-life" = "You got knocked up, it's your own damn fault. We ain't paying for that baby neither or your healthcare."
"Pro-life" = "You got raped? You were probably asking for it."
"Pro-life" = "If you have this baby it'll kill you? Sucks to be you."
"Pro-life" = "Sure we want every baby to be born but we ain't gonna adopt any of 'em and we won't let them damn faggots adopt 'em neither."
|by Anonymous||reply 14||09/01/2013|
This is a gay chat board, no one should give a shit about abortions!
|by Anonymous||reply 15||09/01/2013|
Yikes, R13, that's pretty damning
|by Anonymous||reply 16||09/01/2013|
Pro lifers are NOT pro life.
They're anti sex.
To them, life begins at conception. Birth control pills are actually abortion pills.
After they outlaw abortions, they will outlaw contraception.
This is not about children, or life, or God. It is about controlling other people.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||09/01/2013|
[quote]When artificial wombs exist in the future, unwanted fetuses can be transferred into them and the abortion issue will finally end. Pro-life money ought to flow into research for that.
Right, but then women won't get punished for having sex. They'll still have a choice and 'pro-lifers" don't want that.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||09/01/2013|
[all posts by right wing shit-stain # a removed.]
|by Anonymous||reply 19||09/01/2013|
[quote]Why is it that most people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place?
Hilarious and oh so correct
|by Anonymous||reply 21||09/01/2013|
It's weally a pwo pwivacy awgument. The OP would be mowe convincing if they didn't exewcise theiw option to post anonymously.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||09/01/2013|
Are you pro life, and have adopted a child, give to a food-bank for poor fatherless families or mentor as a Big Brother/Sister? Or are you one of those vile anti-woman anti-abortion people.
If you are just anti-abortion you are not pro-life.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||09/01/2013|
[all posts by right wing shit-stain # a removed.]
|by Anonymous||reply 24||09/01/2013|
Or to be sent to for profit prisons, 24
|by Anonymous||reply 25||09/02/2013|
Funny thing, these pro-life dolts don't realize that they have swallowed the corporate bait, r24,r25, hook, line, and sinker!
|by Anonymous||reply 26||09/02/2013|
Extremely Serious Taste
|by Anonymous||reply 27||09/02/2013|
You're so cute, OP.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||09/02/2013|
'The rights of the unborn' is truly an absurd statement.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||09/02/2013|
No one is pro-abortion, OP. is that why you're confused?
|by Anonymous||reply 30||09/02/2013|
I agree R30. The thought of killing a human being is repulsive, disgusting, and savage. But our bodies are our own. My moral disgust show stop at your door. But all sins ask for their payment at some point.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||09/02/2013|
I'm a woman and I'm pro-life.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||09/02/2013|
R32 good luck with that you dumb bitch
|by Anonymous||reply 33||09/02/2013|
R33 - and fuck you very much, too.
I've noticed that the level of debate for most Merkans is on that sort of level.
"Your [sic] dumb!"
"No, your [sic] dumb!"
Over here in the UK, thankfully, the pro-life/pro-choice debate tends to take place on a rather more intellectual and thoughtful level.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||09/02/2013|
So many baby killers on DL.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||09/02/2013|
Guess who am I!
|by Anonymous||reply 36||09/02/2013|
You mean misogynistic assholes, don't you, R35?
Congratulations, R32. And I wouldn't dream of depriving you of your choice in that regard.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||09/02/2013|
I'm pro choice and pro life. It's the only rational position.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||09/02/2013|
I don't have a problem with people who are "Pro-life" as long as they're consistent.
No one in their right mind could take someone seriously when they claim to be "pro-life" and yet there wasn't a war they didn't love or did everything to make poor children suffer.
Basically, the GOP.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||09/02/2013|
[quote]Over here in the UK, thankfully, the pro-life/pro-choice debate tends to take place on a rather more intellectual and thoughtful level.
Like: it's legal, don't get one if you don't want to? That's fine, but that's unfortunately not the level of discourse here.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||09/02/2013|
R35, one can then presume that you Have many foster children?
|by Anonymous||reply 41||09/02/2013|
And any criminal, no matter how young or mentally challenged they are, most pro-lifers would put them all to death. Even if there's a chance they could be innocent. You have to wonder what Jesus Christ's opinion on capital punishment is.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||09/02/2013|
Yes, let's force women to have kids they don't want and can't afford to take care of. Make them ruin their lives and bring more abused, neglected and impoverished children into the world because the fetus is the only thing that matters.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||09/02/2013|
Whenever I hear someone claim to be "Pro-Life," I automatically assume they are stupid. I have never met an intelligent social conservative. Their arguments are always based on emotion, false equivalencies, misinformation, and just plain ignorance. If you want to stop abortions, get at the root of the problem by addressing the circumstances in society that make a woman feel like she needs it. Unfortunately, it is the anti abortion Republicans that you idiot "pro-lifers" vote for who support policies and budgets that create environments where abortions are more common than they should be.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||09/02/2013|
If you are opposed to abortion, then please, by all means, don't have one.
But, your choice not to have an abortion may not dictate the decisions that others may make.
Abortion should be safe, legal, and -- we hope -- rare. However, it must remain a choice for each woman to make regarding her body in accordance with the law that is now well established.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||09/02/2013|
"The "baby" deserves a chance at life."
But what about his life after birth?
"It's not society's, or my, responsibility to take care of it. It's the parents."
What if they don't want or can't take care of it?
"There are plenty of people wanting to adopt babies. It's not our responsibility. They should have thought about these things before engaging in sex. Once they engaged in sex they gave up their choice."
So you think women are walking incubators for childless couples?
"The "baby" has the right to be born."
So an undeveloped embryo trumps an already breathing fully developed human being?
"The "baby" has the right to be born".
Real life conversation.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||09/02/2013|
Ah, being on a Merkan dominated discussion (sorry, gossip) forum.
Pro-life = conservative, pro-capital punishment, libertarian, anti-nazi-fucking-social-healthcare etc etc etc ad nauseam, right?
|by Anonymous||reply 47||09/02/2013|
R43 - no, let's force women to have an invasive medical procedure (which they agonise over, and torture themselves over for the rest of their lives) to kill their babies in their wombs. All because society would rather flush unborn babies down the waste chute than help the mothers to "afford" their babies.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||09/02/2013|
R48 - most women don't agonize or regret abortions. Quit swallowing false medical "facts" from propaganda sites. Most women think long and hard about their choice. Most have no regrets.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||09/02/2013|
"Force", R48? Nobody's forcing any women to get abortions, they're choosing abortions because it's the best available option.
As for "helping mothers to afford babies", have you now, or have you ever voted for a candidate who cut welfare or other benefits for the poor?
|by Anonymous||reply 50||09/02/2013|
47, pro-life is code for woman hater. It's that simple.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||09/02/2013|
I agree with you 100%, R44. This is just willful ignorance from people who are threatened by anyone with intelligence and the ability to reason. By the very definition of the word choice, there is ONLY choice (our ability to choose) and nothing else.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||09/02/2013|
[quote] no, let's force women to have an invasive medical procedure (which they agonise over, and torture themselves over for the rest of their lives) to kill their babies in their wombs
you may ONLY make this statement, if you are an American citizen and subject to her laws, if you volunteer to raise the said child, otherwise, go away.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||09/02/2013|
R34 - why don't you enlighten us about abortion rights in the UK.
Give us the details on the part where two medical practitioners have to approve the abortion.
Tell us about the stipulations which must be met to get an abortion.
As far as the level of discourse in the UK - please.
We've all seen your parliament's question time on TV.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||09/02/2013|
R47, why not explain WHY you are anti abortion instead of playing the victim card. Let's see how logical, rational and informed your reasoning is. You won't do it because you are afraid we will successfully prove you for the ignorant asshole you are.
Also, you hint without ever explicity stating that our assumptions about you being a conservative nutcase are wrong. By all means, please explicity inform us of your political ideology including capital punishment, welfare, healthcare, workers rights, etc. You won't do that either because you know we have you pegged for the dumb ass your posts reveal you to be.
Kisses, honeybun. ;)
|by Anonymous||reply 55||09/02/2013|
Hey, r54, I'm not r34 but I am a UK citizen who works in the NHS.
[quote]Give us the details on the part where two medical practitioners have to approve the abortion.
Yep, that's true and it's a doddle. Your local doctor will sign, and then the practitioner at the clinic - FOR FREE.
[quote]Tell us about the stipulations which must be met to get an abortion.
The stipulations don't come into play until your past 24 weeks. Even then I've never know a case be turned down. Also 98 percent of abortions in the UK take place before 20 weeks. It's really not a big issue.
[quote]As far as the level of discourse in the UK - please. We've all seen your parliament's question time on TV.
PMQs is only 30 minutes on a Wednesday lunchtime. It's rowdy as hell, but not indicative of all political discourse here.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||09/02/2013|
*your PREGNANCY'S past 24 weeks*
|by Anonymous||reply 57||09/02/2013|
If people are born gay, than someday doctors will be able to tell from an ultrasound When that happens, would it be OK to abort if the parents don't want a gay child?
|by Anonymous||reply 58||09/02/2013|
Well, the 'deal with it' tells the story.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||09/02/2013|
R58, Honey, They already do that type of shit in India and China with girls. That's far worse.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||09/02/2013|
OK, r58 I'll bite your dumb bait.
1. Most decisions to abort are made almost immediately on discovery of a pregnancy. Only a very small percentage of decisions are taken on medical grounds during a planned pregnancy. So your hypothetical test would not come into play in the vast majority of decisions.
2. The temptation to abort a child purely on the grounds of it being gay would only appeal to those who consider homosexuality to be unnatural. If a test were ever discovered, it would prove once and for all that homosexuality is natural. Therefore aborting a foetus on the basis of sexuality would be logically and morally inconsistent to any truly religious person.
3. There will be a tiny minority of hypocritical fundies who would prefer to go against 'god's will' by aborting a pregnancy because of its completely natural sexuality. Logic and morality are useless in those cases. It's their choice.
Essentially, your hypothetical scenario is nothing more than poorly thought out gay-baiting.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||09/02/2013|
The anti-gay crowd and the anti-abortion crowd are generally one and the same. When the day comes that homophobes finally acknowledge that being gay isn't a "lifestyle choice," then maybe there will be something to worry about.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||09/02/2013|
R56 - are you sure? Because here is a quote from the NHS web site about abortion performed under 24 weeks:
[quote] two doctors must agree that an abortion would cause less damage to a woman's physical or mental health than continuing with the pregnancy.
That seems to be a pretty subjective criteria to put in the hands of medical practitioners. As opposed to leaving the decision up to the women.
It's a law that no one person or group that is pro-choice would accept in the United States.
I won't fault the UK's NHS - but please it isn't free. No one claims national health care is free - the money comes from taxes. There is no fee for service.
I'd be careful about characterizing the level of political discourse in the UK. Should we start talking about racism, immigration and unemployment?
|by Anonymous||reply 63||09/02/2013|
I could or would never have an abortion personally as the inconvenient truth is you ARE ending a human life..no matter what form it is. I have won't throw away iris rhizomes that I don't have the room to plant because I know they will yield a flower in the spring. I like the promise of life.
That being said women have the right to an abortion and I know many women are tortured and heartbroken by the decision.
The pro-choice people who disgust me are the following....and I'm sure there are many like her at Datalounge:
|by Anonymous||reply 64||09/02/2013|
The reason more people are pro-life today is that Roe v Wade was 40 years ago. No one under 60 remembers the illegal abortion mills - similar to the case in Philadelphia this year - where desperate women went. Stories about these abortion mills were all over the newspapers in the 1960s.
Some of you are very confused. If a fetus is Iife at conception, and I believe it is, that does not mean a woman is not entitled to a safe and legal abortion. I know the alternative. Making abortion illegal does not stop it.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||09/02/2013|
I'm very sure, r63. The quote you gave was the original intent and extent of the law, but it is barely paid any lip-service in the modern clinic.
[quote]It's a law that no one person or group that is pro-choice would accept in the United States.
I'm sure that's true. I'd much prefer a completely pro-choice wording, but the law was formulated here nearly fifty years ago. I'm content that the wording remain as it is, as long as the practicalities of the modern clinic remain the same and people have a free choice in practical terms.
[quote]I won't fault the UK's NHS - but please it isn't free. No one claims national health care is free - the money comes from taxes. There is no fee for service.
The NHS is funded by the tax system. In all cases, care is free at the point of use. Having paid taxes is not a requirement for care. The NHS has always maintained three core principles: 1. That it meet the needs of everyone 2. That it be free at the point of delivery 3. That it be based on clinical need, not ability to pay
(Of course, the current government may yet screw the country over and ruin it.)
I have never claimed that our political system is perfect - it's very far from it. My point was that you referenced the rowdiest behaviour of PMQs as if that is the entirety of our parliament's political process. It's not.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||09/02/2013|
R66 - you can talk about what the current practice may or may not be all you want. Although it is inconceivable to me as to how you would know what the practice is everywhere in the UK.
It doesn't change the fact that before a woman can get an abortion in the UK two medical practitioners have to sign off on the procedure.
It doesn't change the fact that on their very own website the NHS spells out the requirements for getting an abortion.
I corrected you on the fact that medical care in the UK isn't free. Like I said there is no fee for service.
I never wrote or implied that question time was indicative of all political discourse in the UK. I was replying to a post which generalized the political discourse around abortion in the US and claimed the discussion was more thoughtful and intellectual in the UK. I provided an example of political discourse which made me question the generalization made about the discussion in the UK.
To review: 1) The current legal standing of abortion in the UK isn't pro-choice. 2) There are costs associated with health care in the UK. 3) Like the US some political discourse is thoughtful and intellectual and some isn't.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||09/02/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 68||09/02/2013|
During his residency, my dad had a patient who had performed herself own abortion at home.
He said it was the most horrible thing he'd ever seen. She didn't live.
He's a conservative republican, but pro-choice. That experience is why.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||09/02/2013|
[quote]Control freak. Looks that way!
|by Anonymous||reply 70||09/02/2013|
Keep abortion SAFE SAFE SAFE, legal and rare. What else is there?
Shadow a social worker if you want to understand the quality of life issues associated with an unwanted, unloved child. Read up on Geraldine Santoro if you want to know why abortions must remain safe and legal. Look up the definition of the word "choice" if you're still confused. If none of these gets through to you, put your money where your mouth is and become a foster parent, so you finally understand that not everyone feels as entitled, and has as many clear-cut options in life as you do.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||09/02/2013|
R70, you don't seem to know how to quote.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||09/02/2013|
[quote]Keep abortion SAFE SAFE SAFE, legal and rare.
Abortion clinics couldn't stay open if abortion were rare. There has to be sufficient volume to keep a clinic financially viable.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||09/02/2013|
I'm pro-abortion. And I vote too.
Just kidding. In all seriousness, OP, you're an asshole who needs to tend to your own affairs instead of being hot and bothered about what someone else does with their body.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||09/02/2013|
R68 - I'm just going to guess you are a gay man under the age of 25?
Probably don't think abortion rights is really your issue?
Just not interested enough to try and understand?
|by Anonymous||reply 75||09/02/2013|
R73, don't be absurd. OB-GYNs perform a variety of services and that is only one.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||09/02/2013|
Maybe I missed it, but R68 seems to be describing the far right individuals who want to control women's bodies. If that is the case, I think this person has a pretty good understanding of the issue.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||09/02/2013|
Have you ever seen the results of a coat-hanger abortion? Ever seen a 10-year-old die in labor? Check it out and then tell me you are "pro-life".
|by Anonymous||reply 78||09/02/2013|
"When that happens, would it be OK to abort if the parents don't want a gay child?"
Who here wants to be born to parents who don't want a gay child? How about to parents who think they need to change your orientation? I know there are people on this forum who can tell us exactly what that's like.
And I'd like to ask them to think about what it'd be like if the abuse started at birth.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||09/02/2013|
I don't understand, R64, what about that lady's decision to only keep one of them disgusts you? She made a reasonable (given her circumstance) judgement and went with it. You can't expect people to just be fine, come what may. If you can't support 3 children, don't. Adoption might have been a solution, how much better is debatable.
What seems lost on many pro-life thinkers (do they really think) is that this is not the early 20th century. Women's labor makes a substantial contribution to household income, where women do work outside the home. Particularly true for single women, women who become single parents, or even in the event of a spouse's death. Being pregnant and carrying to term is only the beginning of the joys of accumulating costs.
The author of that article did not appear in a position to sit around all day raising a bunch of children. What about that could possibly be disgusting? Welfare is not winning the lottery; getting by on scraps is no fun.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||09/02/2013|
Okay, ANOTHER one for dummy, R58.
IF, for some strange reason it's possible - yet it isn't, gay fetuses can be ascertained - and then aborted - the problem isn't the medical procedure, it's the stigma. Female fetuses are aborted over and over and over in Asia, every day, every single day. The populations there skew terribly male (and thus are unstable because of it) on account of this. Is the fault of this occurrence ABORTIONS? NO! it's the stigma of giving birth to a girl! what the problem to solve is is removing the stigma of having female offspring - got it ? not the subsequent possible abortions!
On the same token, aborting "gay fetuses" poses the challenge of removing the stigma of gay offspring, NOT of having an abortion. Got it?
If the offspring is viewed as valid and loved then those particular abortions are unnecessary and YOU, fool, are a stupid idiot!!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 81||09/02/2013|
Stop trying to make sense to R58. It hurts her tiny little brain too much.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||09/02/2013|
Another fallacy of the anti-choice crowd is that abortions ought to be banned because some women have had abortions for reasons they don't approve of. That's not a valid reason, largely because who the fuck are you to approve or disapprove of people's private decisions?
If you dig further, anti-choice people will say that making people have unwanted children is okay, because the parents will magically turn loving and stable once the baby is born, and God will make it all come out okay. Obviously these are things people can only believe if they haven't thought about the issues or dealt with the real world, and are big reasons so many of us think anti-abortion enthusiasts aren't very bright.
And then there are those who want to punish women for having sex they don't approve of, and who don't care that the innocent child will be punished even more.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||09/02/2013|
Perhaps if the pro-"life" crowd's interest in children extended past the delivery room door others might pay more attention to them.
In the meantime,the Back Alley Abortionists Union would like to heartily thank OP for her tireless quest in order to make safe abortions illegal.
We salute you, OP with our knitting needles and coat hangers!
Keep up the good work!!
|by Anonymous||reply 84||09/02/2013|
[quote] Pro-Life. And I vote
You're a fucking moron
|by Anonymous||reply 85||09/02/2013|
Abort abort abort!
|by Anonymous||reply 86||09/02/2013|
R55 - I'm a British woman, a pro-lifer, a socialist. I used to be a card carrying member of our Labour party until it went so far right it may as well have merged with the Tories.
I am vehemently anti-capital punishment, pro-workers' rights, pro-gay marriage and anti-discrimination of any sort.
Anti-gun, as well, even though it's not really an issue here in the UK.
I believe, passionately, that no-one has the right to take another's life, whether the life be that of a convicted criminal or that of an unborn child.
Good enough for you?
|by Anonymous||reply 87||09/03/2013|
r87, forcing someone to be chattle -- against their will and at grave risk to their health -- is also taking a life.
And I don't believe for one second that you're a woman.
|by Anonymous||reply 88||09/03/2013|
How old are you, R87? I would guess under 30.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||09/03/2013|
But can you tell the difference from a zygote and a two year old?
|by Anonymous||reply 90||09/03/2013|
I have never met or read anything by anyone who claimed to be "Pro-Life" who was actually pro-life.
They were at best, pro-fetus. Most of the time not even that. They're mostly just pro-controlling-women's-sexuality or anti-sex.
They don't give a shit about actual life. Human life. Living people. They almost always tend to be pro-death-penalty, pro-torture, pro-war, anti-healthcare, anti-food-assistance, anti-child-care-assistance, anti-education, anti-environment, anti-regulation ... all the things that cause a lot of death and misery.
They're truly vile, horrid people, with vile, horrid beliefs.
And yet they're so arrogant and pious, thinking they have a "one-size-fits-all" answer to everyone and everything.
The fact that they put the existence of a blastula or embryo over the life of the woman who is carrying it, is just appalling, even if they aren't any of those other thing. Even though a THIRD of all fertilized eggs and embryos miscarry (many times without the woman even knowing she was ever pregnant). They don't care about THAT. They don't care about cases of rape or the life of the mother being in danger. They don't care about the fact that an unwanted child will be miserable... they don't give a flying fuck about QUALITY of life. For anyone. They're just so selfishly arrogant that they think they know what's right for other people, based purely on ignorant, uninformed dogma. Short-sighted nonsense.
Pro-Life people are just horrible people.
|by Anonymous||reply 91||09/03/2013|
R87 here - I'm a woman, a mother, and I'm 45.
I've encountered this sort of attitude before. Because I don't fit into your narrow, prejudiced, preconceived ideas of a "pro-lifer", you simply deny that I exist, a bit like R91.
I understand. It's far easier to do that than actually discuss the issues involved.
For instance, did you know that the abortion rate in the USA for black women is almost five times that for white women?
|by Anonymous||reply 92||09/03/2013|
Good for you OP. Now tell your femaile friends you are in favor of contolling THEIR health and THEIR choice.
Since you are pro life, I suggest you don't get an abortion as well.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||09/03/2013|
R92's post is more evidence that allegedly "Pro-Life" people are pretty horrible, ignorant people.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||09/03/2013|
R94 - how so?
|by Anonymous||reply 95||09/03/2013|
The last sentence and it's obviously racist over-tones (you can just read the smug haughtiness in that statement). Never mind that 91 didn't deny she existed (obvious reading comprehension problems).
Complete ignorance of consequences and basic reproductive facts, as well as social facts, leads someone to be "anti-abortion" (which isn't even remotely the same as being 'pro life').
I think it's pretty obvious.
|by Anonymous||reply 96||09/03/2013|
[quote]If people are born gay, than someday doctors will be able to tell from an ultrasound When that happens, would it be OK to abort if the parents don't want a gay child?
And only LIBERALS will abort their gay babies. Conservatives will still have them.
Oh the irony!
|by Anonymous||reply 97||09/03/2013|
So then you also vote against gay rights since 99.9999% of "pro-life" candidates are bigots.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||09/03/2013|
Does it piss prolifers off that they've had the votes to overturn Roe v Wade for years but they NEVER will because it gets dummies like you to vote against your own economic interests? The Supreme Court could vote it out tomorrow. But they won't even if Frothy Santorum somehow got to be President.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||09/03/2013|
[quote]Conservatives will still have them.
Are you kidding? The most hypocritical people are conservatives, suddenly they would be reasonable about women's freedom to make her own decisions.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||09/03/2013|
Oh, she's British? Well then who the fuck cares.
"She" lives in a country that won't be criminalizing abortion anytime in the next century. Her opinions in the US are completely irrelevant.
If of course "she" isn't just another trolling gay wingnut.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||09/03/2013|
[all posts by right wing shit-stain # a removed.]
|by Anonymous||reply 102||09/03/2013|
Most conservatives are anti-abortion because they want to punish women who step out of line - for having sex, or for putting her own concerns first.
They don't see that it's wrong to fuck up a child's life, in order to punish the parent. Because they're small-minded, nasty, not very bright, and quite incapable of the forgiveness Jesus valued so much.
|by Anonymous||reply 103||09/03/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 104||09/03/2013|
How the fuck is what I said racist? I think it's disgusting that the rate of abortion for black women is five times that of white women in the US.
It's eugenics by the back door, and you clearly don't give a shit.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||09/03/2013|
How about supporting increased funding for free contraception in minority communities? Darling "British" "female" troll @ R105.
With no corresponding increase in prenatal care, making abortion illegal just increases the incidence of back-alley abortions. Like you actually gave a flying fuck about the health of African-American women, troll.
|by Anonymous||reply 106||09/03/2013|
Yes, R105, the government monitors who has sex and who's getting pregnant. If you're black, you can expect an accompanied visit to an abortion clinic.
In the real world, people choose to have the procedure. If they don't want them, they don't have them. Funnily enough, one always hears about Shaniqua and her 10 babies by 11 different men. Which black women are getting these abortions?!
|by Anonymous||reply 107||09/03/2013|
[quote]How the fuck is what I said racist? I think it's disgusting that the rate of abortion for black women is five times that of white women in the US. It's eugenics by the back door, and you clearly don't give a shit.
How the fuck is it eugenics?
Are black women being kidnapped and forced to submit to abortions?
If not, then it's not fucking eugenics, you stupid cunt!
|by Anonymous||reply 108||09/03/2013|
[quote]It's eugenics by the back door
I've always preferred it by the back door.
|by Anonymous||reply 109||09/03/2013|
It is a difficult subject, OP. I respect your decision.
|by Anonymous||reply 110||09/04/2013|
You don't need to force black women to have abortions at gunpoint if your society ensures that they are kept poorer and less educated and have less access to contraception than their white counterparts.
But don't let social deprivation and lack of opportunity prevent your scrambling over yourselves to bleat your "pro-choice" mantra.
Like there's a *choice*.
|by Anonymous||reply 111||09/04/2013|
So let's say abortion is banned R111. That isn't going to fix poverty rates for black women in the United States and it isn't going to stop black women from having abortions. So what you really are saying is that you are against SAFE abortions that are regulated and sterile and pro back alley abortions that butcher women and leave them either sterile or dead. You are a heartless cunt who doesn't the difference between an embryo and a human being. Should we hold a funeral for a "baby," by your definition, every time a woman miscarries during her first month of pregnancy? You do know most women who miscarry never even knew they were pregnant to begin with. Are you also devastated every time you have a period knowing that half of what would have been your baby just died? If the answer is yes, please see a psychiatrist ASAP.
|by Anonymous||reply 112||09/04/2013|
[quote]"She" lives in a country that won't be criminalizing abortion anytime in the next century. Her opinions in the US are completely irrelevant.
i agree, "she" sounds like a crackpot or a troll.
|by Anonymous||reply 113||09/04/2013|
[quote]You don't need to force black women to have abortions at gunpoint if your society ensures that they are kept poorer and less educated and have less access to contraception than their white counterparts.
then the subject CLEARLY is not about abortion - a medical procedure - and is about the continued disenfranchisement of the poor and ethnic minorities.
|by Anonymous||reply 114||09/04/2013|
"How about supporting increased funding for free contraception in minority communities?"
Po-lifers are RELIGIOUS. They think contraception is evil.
|by Anonymous||reply 115||09/04/2013|
An interesting study found that most pro-life people take their animals to the humane society, or give them away.
|by Anonymous||reply 116||09/04/2013|
I don't care if you're personally pro-life and would never choose an abortion for yourself.
Where it bugs the shit out of me (and what makes you a horrible person) is when you try to force your one-size-fits-exactly-you opinion on everyone else, as if you know better for everyone in every given situation.
If you think there's a covert racial genocide component at work here (which is laughable, as it's the people who would support such a thing that oppose abortions), then the correct solution is not to abandon choice and have the federal government dictate what you can and cannot do with your own body, but to work to support robust child-care, social-safety nets, living wages, sex education, and free & readily available contraception... all the things that are PROVEN to reduce abortions, yet which nearly all Pro-Life people OPPOSE.
I mean, seriously... we have HARD HISTORICAL DATA on what does and doesn't work to reduce or eliminate abortions.
What doesn't work AT ALL: Banning abortions, making them illegal, making them extremely difficult to get, abstinence-only sex-ed, standing outside of abortion clinics harassing the staff and customers.
What WORKS REALLY WELL: Free & easy to obtain contraceptive, full and comprehensive sex education, full employment, living wages, social safety-nets, robust child-care options, food-aid, robust public transportation, robust health-care
So basically, Conservatives -- who demagogue about abortion and HATE it and are OBSESSED with ending it -- vote for policies that ensure there will be lots of abortions, and hate on liberals... whose policies would dramatically reduce the number of abortions, all while keeping decisions about reproduction and child-birth between the parents, their doctor, and their own spiritual guidance & gods (if any)... you know, FREEDOM and LIBERTY.
Basically, there is nothing correct about the so-called "Pro-life" stance. It's hypocritical and controlling and authoritarian, and it DOESN'T WORK.
The ONLY valid choice is to be "Pro-Choice", and "no" is a perfectly valid choice.
|by Anonymous||reply 117||09/04/2013|
"If abortion is banned..."
Worst case: Roe v. Wade is overturned (it should be, it's horrible law)
Abortion goes back to the states.
Abortion will be legal in blue states (along with gay marriage)
Abortion will be illegal in red states (along with gay marriage)
The population is free to vote at the ballot box, and with their feet.
|by Anonymous||reply 118||09/04/2013|
R118 is an idiot.
By Supreme Court edict, abortion is Constitutional, and it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to ban it.
No, it's not a horrible law. It is correct. State governments have NO RIGHT to ban abortions, just like they have NO RIGHT to allow slavery.
|by Anonymous||reply 119||09/04/2013|
[quote] Pro-Life. And I vote.
And what do you have to show for it?
|by Anonymous||reply 120||09/04/2013|
Pro-consistent ethic of life. And I not only vote: Until last month, I worked at the White House. I was not an outlier there.
|by Anonymous||reply 121||09/04/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 122||09/04/2013|
Pro-Life people, what do we do with all of these unwanted kids that reek havoc on society when they grow up because they are pissed off at the world.
|by Anonymous||reply 123||09/04/2013|
Very pro-life idiot should be required to adopt two unwanted children and raise them and provide for them.
|by Anonymous||reply 124||09/04/2013|
I'm assuming OP is a married female.
|by Anonymous||reply 125||09/04/2013|
Who isn't "prolife"? I'm all for life. The fetus-obsessed should not get to own the term.
I also think a pregnant woman should get to decide whether to carry a fetus to term, in consultation with a doctor who can explain the risks.
Women who seek abortions do so for a number of reasons.
|by Anonymous||reply 126||09/04/2013|
R123 - try learning to spell?
|by Anonymous||reply 127||09/04/2013|
[quote]If you think there's a covert racial genocide component at work here (which is laughable, as it's the people who would support such a thing that oppose abortions), then the correct solution is not to abandon choice and have the federal government dictate what you can and cannot do with your own body, but to work to support robust child-care, social-safety nets, living wages, sex education, and free & readily available contraception... all the things that are PROVEN to reduce abortions, yet which nearly all Pro-Life people OPPOSE.
That's because you're a Merkan. Which is why I say again, Merka is not the whole world. Try thinking outside of Merka.
Here in the UK, most pro-lifers are absolutely for all of those things you list.
Merka is just a fucking weird place.
|by Anonymous||reply 128||09/04/2013|
Like the UK fucking counts for anything. This is an American site. Of course America is assumed.
And anyone who is both 'pro-life' AND uses words like "Merkan" and "merka" has absolutely zero credibility.
|by Anonymous||reply 129||09/04/2013|
R129 - yeah, cheers for demonstrating yet again what bigoted, insular, ignorant fucktards Merkans are....
|by Anonymous||reply 130||09/07/2013|
[quote]I'm totally pro-life but I also think it should be up to the woman whether to carry a fetus to term. It is a decision best left to a woman, her doctor, and her god.
So then you're pro-choice!
|by Anonymous||reply 131||09/07/2013|
R130 is so dumb, she/it doesn't see the irony of calling us "bigoted" and "ignorant" followed by her repeated use of the words "Merka" and "Merkan" throughout this thread. Then again, her/its only justification for being anti-choice is claiming to be a "liberal" inselaffe who cares only about "saving" poor black women and their precious embryos. As has been repeated ad nauseum, "pro-lifers" are really only against SAFE abortions. "Pro-lifers" are pro-back alley abortions. Rich women and women who come from rich families will still be having abortions albeit more expensive. Therefore, abortion will only be an option for the rich and affluent. Poor people on the other hand will be forced to carry and then raise children they either don't want, can't afford, or both. Worse yet, poor women will resort to barbaric and unsterile methods for terminating pregnancies. Obviously people like R130 don't give a shit about these women's lives or even consider for one second the repercussions of their views. Should a woman be forced to carry to term a fetus so deformed it won't live more than a few hours once born? Should a woman be forced to carry to term a fetus that poses the risk of death to the mother? Should a 10 year old be forced to carry to term a fetus conceived by being raped by her father? If the cunt at R130 is seriously "pro-life," she/it believes all these sitsutiions shouldn't end in an abortion and she/it is a horrible person for those views. Or she/it is just a "bloody idiot." Either way.
|by Anonymous||reply 132||09/07/2013|
R132 = illiterate...
|by Anonymous||reply 133||09/08/2013|
[quote]Pro-consistent ethic of life. And I not only vote: Until last month, I worked at the White House. I was not an outlier there.
I have to think a pro-consistent ethic of life means you oppose abortion in all cases, including rape and incest?
I find it very difficult to belief anyone with that position is not an outlier in any political circles.
|by Anonymous||reply 134||09/08/2013|
Ouch, R133. Coming from someone with your high intellect, that stings. Though I praise you for having the self control not to throw in a "Merka" or "Merkan" this time, you noxious cow, you. ;)
Seriously, you never address people's arguments, but merely insult them. I at least give you the courtesy of insulting you AND addressing your inane blabbering. School was not your friend, was it?
|by Anonymous||reply 135||09/08/2013|
Just more proof that "pro-life" (really "anti-abortion") people are idiots.
You can be pro-life and pro-choice.
But the abortion issue really is an issue like slavery and gay rights: There's only one right side, and that's the pro-choice side. Which is NOT "pro-abortion".
There is simply no scientifically sound definition for the beginning of human life. It varies by individual, religion, temperament, and moment. There is no one size fits all solution.
The BEST solution is to leave it to the woman, her partner, her doctors, and her spiritual advisors (if any)... and institute public policies that keeps abortion accessible, safe, and RARE.
|by Anonymous||reply 136||09/08/2013|
R121 is what's wrong with this country.
|by Anonymous||reply 137||09/08/2013|
[quote] Here in the UK, most pro-lifers are absolutely for all of those things you list.
That's utter bullshit, r128. You can shove your anti-American shtick up your bigoted cunt as well.
|by Anonymous||reply 138||09/08/2013|
The brit bitch is one of the DL's frauen. A straight woman who doesn't belong here but who is more than happy to litter the DL with her pronouncements on what gay men ought to think.
Die in a grease fire, cunt.
For the religious anti-choice nutters (who may or may not include Britbitch), it's worth noting that your bible does not include any prohibition on abortion. This, while abortion was well-known and commonly practiced during the time it was written (and before, and after). As an example, Cleopatra is reported to have had several abortions. There was an abortifacient plant in those times, Silphium, that was so over-used it became extinct.
If the men who claim to speak for god in your book knew that god was anti-choice, why didn't they say so? They determined that life began at "quickening" meaning when the already-born could feel the baby move in the womb. That's at about four months, give or take. Still, nary a mention of abortion in that noxious tome.
Naturally, gumming up the pretzel-logic of a religious nutter's mind with the bible and/or historical facts is pointless. Their real problem with abortion is always rooted in their fear and hatred of women.
|by Anonymous||reply 139||09/08/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 140||09/15/2013|
[quote]So then you're pro-choice!
r131, My point was that I'm prochoice and I don't think the people who think laws should force women to carry every fetus to term should get to own the term 'prolife'.
I'm all for life. If I believe women should get to make the decision it doesn't make me not pro-life.
The false dichotomy in terms cedes too much to the right wing.
|by Anonymous||reply 141||09/15/2013|
you aren't all for life, r141. you think the choice to kill human life in the womb is legitimate and permissible. that is not pro-life. that is anti-life.
|by Anonymous||reply 142||09/27/2013|
Wow, a thread where people argue about abortion!
|by Anonymous||reply 143||09/27/2013|
Yes, we really ought to have more arguments about abortion. They're so fruitful (pardon the pun). They've accomplished so much in these past 40 years.
|by Anonymous||reply 144||09/27/2013|
wow. interesting tags, webmaster!
|by Anonymous||reply 145||09/27/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 146||10/12/2014|
Wendy Davis is going down in flames.
|by Anonymous||reply 147||10/26/2014|
I never understood why fags have such a stake in protecting abortion rights.
|by Anonymous||reply 148||10/26/2014|
R148 Freedom of choice. Something all people care about, not just "fags" and the a-holes who like using that word
|by Anonymous||reply 149||10/26/2014|
You didn't answer the question, fag.
|by Anonymous||reply 150||10/26/2014|
happy now, OP?
|by Anonymous||reply 151||11/11/2014|
I'm pro-intelligence and I vote. So?
|by Anonymous||reply 152||11/11/2014|
The big irony is that most people who are "pro-life" are also pro death penalty. I'm guessing that issue wasn't as much of a crowd gatherer to get votes for their candidates when the Family Research Council came up with their list of decisive issues to snare single-issue voters back in the 70s. Abortion, gay rights (or our right to simply live), and prayer in public schools apparently did the trick.
It's all smoke and mirrors. US Congressman Scott DesJarlais from TN is one fervent anti-abortion legislator. However, that didn't stop him from pressuring his wife and mistress to have several abortions. And, he won re-election by a landslide this month in an extremely conservative state.
Stay away from the Kool-Aid.
|by Anonymous||reply 153||11/11/2014|