Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 3/15/2006 4:44:42 PM EDT
This scum bag wants to kill your baby. Anyone who thinks they are providing a service like this and give it no more thought than someone killing bugs is dangerous.


Baby killer
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 4:47:40 PM EDT
Only if you pay him.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 4:47:47 PM EDT
???
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 4:48:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By IceHandLuke:
This scum bag wants to kill your baby.


I'm anti-abortion, but do we really need to engage in hyperbolic hysteria? Isn't that straight from the liberal playbook?
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 4:48:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/15/2006 4:48:31 PM EDT by DK-Prof]

Definitely watch out for him. If you have an infant or small child, he will come to your house and kill it!

Link Posted: 3/15/2006 4:48:29 PM EDT
I don't agree with it, but we could see a resurgence of "coat hanger" abortions if places like this were not in operation.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 4:48:46 PM EDT
I am surprised the word Abortion is used. It is a dirty word now to the baby killers.

"Womans Health" and "A womans choice" are used instead now.

oh...

"A womans reproductive right"

Link Posted: 3/15/2006 4:51:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By j-fonz:
I don't agree with it, but we could see a resurgence of "coat hanger" abortions if places like this were not in operation.




I doubt it.....while the procedure would definitely go underground, there are enough liberal Doctors who would do it for the women who wanted it....I would guess that the cost would go WAY up, though....
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 4:55:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JarheadPatriot:

Originally Posted By j-fonz:
I don't agree with it, but we could see a resurgence of "coat hanger" abortions if places like this were not in operation.




I doubt it.....while the procedure would definitely go underground, there are enough liberal Doctors who would do it for the women who wanted it....I would guess that the cost would go WAY up, though....




If abortion became legal in some states, what would happen is the following.

1) It would NOT really affect wealthy and middle-class women at all, because they would simply travel to states that allow it.
2) There would be some "black market" abortions and do-it-yourself abortions, some resulting in serious injury/complications
3) There would be a LOT more poor (often black) single women having kids, and putting a larger drain on our welfare system, or giving them up for adoption.

And, of course 4) there would be a small reduction in the pregnancy rate, but not huge because these people that are getitng pregnant now and having abortions are clearly idiots, who neither plan nor take responsibility for their behavior, so I don't see why their personalities would suddenly change just because some law was passed.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 4:55:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By j-fonz:
I don't agree with it, but we could see a resurgence of "coat hanger" abortions if places like this were not in operation.



I doubt it. The woman wouldn't want to put herself at that much risk. Say what you want, most women who would abort a baby are likely very selfish.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 4:59:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By triburst1:

Originally Posted By j-fonz:
I don't agree with it, but we could see a resurgence of "coat hanger" abortions if places like this were not in operation.



I doubt it. The woman wouldn't want to put herself at that much risk. Say what you want, most women who would abort a baby are likely very selfish.


I was referring specifically to the teenage crowd - they don't want to see anybody because they are afraid Mommy and Daddy might find out. There were 2 people that I went to HS with that did this and one of them is incapable of reproducing.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 5:04:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By j-fonz:

Originally Posted By triburst1:

Originally Posted By j-fonz:
I don't agree with it, but we could see a resurgence of "coat hanger" abortions if places like this were not in operation.



I doubt it. The woman wouldn't want to put herself at that much risk. Say what you want, most women who would abort a baby are likely very selfish.


I was referring specifically to the teenage crowd - they don't want to see anybody because they are afraid Mommy and Daddy might find out. There were 2 people that I went to HS with that did this and one of them is incapable of reproducing.



At least it wasn't a total loss.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 5:47:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By IceHandLuke:
This scum bag wants to kill your baby. Anyone who thinks they are providing a service like this and give it no more thought than someone killing bugs is dangerous.


Baby killer



This is a perfect example why the progun movement has so much trouble succeeding. We really need to weed out the religious nutjobs who are still stuck in the 13th century if we're ever going to make any political headway.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 5:49:22 PM EDT
It's amazing how much our conservatives sound like the libtards when it comes to their pet causes. Nothing but emotion and wild buzzwords.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 5:50:14 PM EDT
OH MY GOD,I knew that dude looked familiar. I was with my 7.5 month pregnant wife at the market earlier and he was lurking behind us the entire time giggling maniacally and rubbing his hands together !!!!! Name with the face you bastard you are MINE!!!!
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 5:58:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/15/2006 5:58:26 PM EDT by Bubbatheredneck]

Originally Posted By dolanp:
It's amazing how much our conservatives sound like the libtards when it comes to their pet causes. Nothing but emotion and wild buzzwords.



What is really amazing is how many "conservatives" have been indoctrinated by the pro abortion crowd over the past 30+ years and regurgitate their propaganda without a second thought.


Thinking and a little critical research goes a long way.



Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:02:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Definitely watch out for him. If you have an infant or small child, he will come to your house and kill it!




Forwarned is forearmed!

If he comes to my house, I'll be ready!

Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:05:06 PM EDT
Abortion is alot like the gun issue in my book, Both are something that i think the government should have absolutely nothing to do with. If someone wants a MAC10 then fine. Some gil wants an abortion then fine but my tax money better not havre anything to do with it.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:05:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Definitely watch out for him. If you have an infant or small child, he will come to your house and kill it!




my sister has a cat that will sneak up on yungins whilst asleep, crouch near their face and attempt to suck up their breath..

is this guy like one of those?
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:13:46 PM EDT
Good for him.

I want to kill your baby too.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:15:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Definitely watch out for him. If you have an infant or small child, he will come to your house and kill it!




That sun of a bitch.[!]
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:16:00 PM EDT
baby is good eating too. I once had a helluva dead baby enchilada.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:18:13 PM EDT
You must be kidding me....Look, abortion as a form of correcting a "We were just too busy to put on a condom last night" moment is a "moral crime". The gov't shouldn't have anything to do with it, but you'll answer to the real authority for your actions eventually. The need for abortion in cases of rape, incest or medical necessity is identifiable WAY before the stages that guy is talking about. Either way, the .gov should stay away from the issue. Less gov't is better gov't in most cases.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:41:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/15/2006 6:48:26 PM EDT by Zippy_The_Wonderdog]
You like to present yourself as being quite convinced of your convictions, don't you? If you really view abortion clinics as organized murder...then why in the hell aren't you bombing them or trying to take out the doctor in question, you half assed whiny piker?

Otherwise, based upon your convictions, you are tantamount to nothing more than a sub-human apathetic WWII German grunt leading the Jews into the "showers" without raising a fuss just because it is your job and still finding some excuse to live with yourself.

I just don't understand the apathy of the vast, vast majority of anti-abortionists. They talk a big game about a horrific crime in their view...ritualized murder...but for the most part they are all talk and no real action. If I was aware of what I felt to be ritualized murder, I'd go apeshit and probably get more than a wee bit revolutionary.

But, I don't view it this way. It's an early mass of cells or something along the lines of a tadpole in a semi-human sense. It's is not murder. Maybe killing...but not murder. There is nothing wrong with killing.

Pro-lifers love to protest, but with their words plastered on bumper stickers and billboards you never hear about their voluntary financial support to the child when it is born. You have to deal with hard realities here...we live in a semi-socialistic society and entitlements are becoming the norm. This means entitlements to public child support. Do YOU want to pay for this? I certainly don't, and get your pesky hand out of my wallet!

As much of a capitalist as I am, and hate public programs, I am also pragmatic. Public spending on abortions? It has to be done. It is cheaper in the long run. Unfortuneately, you have to play by the rules every so often.

Flame away at me as you will, but spare me your biblical references and instead bring up objective arguements against abortion.



Originally Posted By IceHandLuke:
This scum bag wants to kill your baby. Anyone who thinks they are providing a service like this and give it no more thought than someone killing bugs is dangerous.


Baby killer

Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:08:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zippy_The_Wonderdog:
You like to present yourself as being quite convinced of your convictions, don't you? If you really view abortion clinics as organized murder...then why in the hell aren't you bombing them or trying to take out the doctor in question, you half assed whiny piker?

Otherwise, based upon your convictions, you are tantamount to nothing more than a sub-human apathetic WWII German grunt leading the Jews into the "showers" without raising a fuss just because it is your job and still finding some excuse to live with yourself.

I just don't understand the apathy of the vast, vast majority of anti-abortionists. They talk a big game about a horrific crime in their view...ritualized murder...but for the most part they are all talk and no real action. If I was aware of what I felt to be ritualized murder, I'd go apeshit and probably get more than a wee bit revolutionary.

But, I don't view it this way. It's an early mass of cells or something along the lines of a tadpole in a semi-human sense. It's is not murder. Maybe killing...but not murder. There is nothing wrong with killing.

Pro-lifers love to protest, but with their words plastered on bumper stickers and billboards you never hear about their voluntary financial support to the child when it is born. You have to deal with hard realities here...we live in a semi-socialistic society and entitlements are becoming the norm. This means entitlements to public child support. Do YOU want to pay for this? I certainly don't, and get your pesky hand out of my wallet!

As much of a capitalist as I am, and hate public programs, I am also pragmatic. Public spending on abortions? It has to be done. It is cheaper in the long run. Unfortuneately, you have to play by the rules every so often.

Flame away at me as you will, but spare me your biblical references and instead bring up objective arguements against abortion.


Good post.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:16:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 10:19:19 AM EDT by madmann135]
To my knowledge abortion was illeagle some time ago and this happned.

-Women who didn't want the baby would abandon it in alleys, therefore killing the child.
-Women who didn't want to get pregnant tried numerous things to abort the fetus, some ending with serous injury to the woman which some lead to the death of the woman.


Though I don't like the Idea of abortion I'm for it because it is somewhat a lesser evil senario.
--The baby is born outside of a hospital then left in a dumpster to die. The girl tries to preform a do-it-yourself abortion and ends up dying in the process.
--OR the girl can go to the hospital and have an abortion that is A LOT safer than a do-it-yourself kit and walks away.

Not to mention that the doctors are getting paid by people that should not have been doing what they did to get the girl pregnant.

Also abortion is not an easy fix, it damages the woman's body sometimes making the woman infertile.

So if that guy wants to be an abortion doctor go ahead, nothing off my back.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:23:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 10:23:45 AM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By Lon_Moer:

Originally Posted By Zippy_The_Wonderdog:
You like to present yourself as being quite convinced of your convictions, don't you? If you really view abortion clinics as organized murder...then why in the hell aren't you bombing them or trying to take out the doctor in question, you half assed whiny piker?

Otherwise, based upon your convictions, you are tantamount to nothing more than a sub-human apathetic WWII German grunt leading the Jews into the "showers" without raising a fuss just because it is your job and still finding some excuse to live with yourself.

I just don't understand the apathy of the vast, vast majority of anti-abortionists. They talk a big game about a horrific crime in their view...ritualized murder...but for the most part they are all talk and no real action. If I was aware of what I felt to be ritualized murder, I'd go apeshit and probably get more than a wee bit revolutionary.

But, I don't view it this way. It's an early mass of cells or something along the lines of a tadpole in a semi-human sense. It's is not murder. Maybe killing...but not murder. There is nothing wrong with killing.

Pro-lifers love to protest, but with their words plastered on bumper stickers and billboards you never hear about their voluntary financial support to the child when it is born. You have to deal with hard realities here...we live in a semi-socialistic society and entitlements are becoming the norm. This means entitlements to public child support. Do YOU want to pay for this? I certainly don't, and get your pesky hand out of my wallet!

As much of a capitalist as I am, and hate public programs, I am also pragmatic. Public spending on abortions? It has to be done. It is cheaper in the long run. Unfortuneately, you have to play by the rules every so often.

Flame away at me as you will, but spare me your biblical references and instead bring up objective arguements against abortion.


Good post.




I does raise an interesting point.

If abortion becomes illegal, and someone later asks me "DK, why didn't you do something to stop the murder of thousands and thousands of innocent babies every year back when it was going on out in the open? You KNEW who was doing it, and where they worked. Why did you just sit by and do nothing while all those kids were being murdered?" - then I can honestly answer that I didn't believe that any "children" were being "murdered" and thus there was no reason to act. If someone had run into the school down the street and started shooting children, then of course I would have acted, and would have risked my own life to prevent the murder of children. As I am sure everyone on arfcom would have.

But if someone honestly and sincerely believes that it is murder - the deliberate mass murder of innocent children, going on in public, before their very eyes - how are they going to answer that same question?

"I posted an angry rant on the internet"
"I voted for a conservative politician"
"I didn't want to break the law or get in trouble"

Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:26:00 AM EDT
If you're a guy and your woman and that doctor want to kill your baby, you don't have a say in the matter.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:26:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By IceHandLuke:
This scum bag wants to kill your baby.


do we really need to engage in hyperbolic hysteria? Isn't that straight from the liberal playbook?



+1.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:28:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 10:31:33 AM EDT by John_Wayne777]

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
But if someone honestly and sincerely believes that it is murder - the deliberate mass murder of innocent children, going on in public, before their very eyes - how are they going to answer that same question?

"I posted an angry rant on the internet"
"I voted for a conservative politician"
"I didn't want to break the law or get in trouble"




Come on prof! You are too smart to make such a silly arguement.

One guy running down the street to shoot up an elementary school is one type of problem.

But a type of immorality codified as law is a whole different thing.

It is about as sane as calling abolitionists slavery sympathizers because they didn't go around killing slave owners. They didn't kill a lot of slave owners, but they DID fight the institution of slavery.

Individuals acting outside the bounds of law are one thing. A government sanctioned system is an entirely different animal. You deal with those two different problems in different ways.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:30:59 AM EDT
Oooh oooh! Popcorn....where's the popcorn....

Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:32:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
But if someone honestly and sincerely believes that it is murder - the deliberate mass murder of innocent children, going on in public, before their very eyes - how are they going to answer that same question?

"I posted an angry rant on the internet"
"I voted for a conservative politician"
"I didn't want to break the law or get in trouble"




Come on prof! You are too smart to make such a silly arguement.

One guy running down the street to shoot up an elementary school is one type of problem.

But a type of immorality codified as law is a whole different thing.

It is about as sane as calling abolitionists slavery sympathizers because they didn't go around killing slave owners. They didn't kill a lot of slave owners, but they DID fight the institution of slavery.

Individuals acting outside the bounds of law are one thing. A government sanctioned system is an entirely different animal. You deal with those two different problems in different ways.



That does it. I've finally decided to do something about jaywalkers. If you see me on the national news this evening, you'll know why.

Some "crimes" are worse than others.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:33:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 10:34:15 AM EDT by PreMed_Gunner]

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
It is about as sane as calling abolitionists slavery sympathizers because they didn't go around killing slave owners.



John Brown did, or attempted to anyway. I personally think the guy had the right idea.

Actually, most abolitionists still viewed Blacks as being subhuman, not quite as good as Whites. The reason they were anti-Slavery is the same reason someone would be against animal abuse: you feel sorry for the "animal" enough that you want to end its suffering.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:33:54 AM EDT
Aww geeze, not this shit shit again.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:34:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
But if someone honestly and sincerely believes that it is murder - the deliberate mass murder of innocent children, going on in public, before their very eyes - how are they going to answer that same question? he"I voted for a conservative politician"
"I didn't want to break the law or get in trouble"

hinking.gif



Come on prof! You are too smart to make such a silly arguement.

One guy running down the street to shoot up an elementary school is one type of problem.

But a type of immorality codified as law is a whole different thing.

It is about as sane as calling abolitionists slavery sympathizers because they didn't go around killing slave owners. Individuals acting outside the bounds of law are one thing. A government sanctioned system is an entirely different animal.



Of course, slavery was not in and of itself murder, so one might argue that killing was not an appropriate response. A more contemporary analogy might be gun-banning politicians. They are systematically and deliberately attempting to deny us the means to protect our lives and those of our loved ones. That constitutes a direct, lethal threat. Why aren't we killing them....? Should I feel guilty because I'm not out shooting congresscritters? Should you, Zippy?

Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:35:31 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:40:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 10:51:42 AM EDT by Belloc]

Originally Posted By Lon_Moer:
Good post.



For someone who really has no clue as to what he is talking about maybe.

Public spending on abortions does NOT have to "be done". The Nazis also told their citizens that killing the handicapped and mentally retarded would save them money. Pragmaticism is the philosophy of the amoral.
If you really want to allow liberals to say that a child moments from being born is not a human person, then you must allow the same fucktards to say that two men sodomizing each other is a "marriage" and a rifle with an adjustable stock is an "assault weapon".

If anyone says that protecting unborn children from being killed will cause welfare costs to go up I say great. Let's up they go up so high that the entire welfare system crumbles to the unholy ground from which it came.
It is really a tenable position for those who claim they believe in the Constitutionally recognized inalienable right to keep and bear arms that we must sacrifice the right to life from the moment we are created as recognized in the Declaration of Independence so as to prevent more funding for a Constitutionally prohibited action?
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:42:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PreMed_Gunner:
John Brown did, or attempted to anyway. I personally think the guy had the right idea.

Actually, most abolitionists still viewed Blacks as being subhuman, not quite as good as Whites. The reason they were anti-Slavery is the same reason someone would be against animal abuse: you feel sorry for the "animal" enough that you want to end its suffering.



What about Frederick Douglass?

He didn't think black people were sub-human. And yet he didn't go around killing slave owners.

Did he realize that combatting an evil system sanctioned by government required different strategies, or was he just a big wuss??

Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:43:09 AM EDT
According to the Libs, abortions don't kill as many babies as semi-automatic machine gun assault rifles that "spray and fire".
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:44:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 10:54:31 AM EDT by Belloc]
Originally Posted By madmann135:
To my knowledge abortion was illeagle some time ago

And always was right up until recently here in America. Do you know who first removed the laws that protected the unborn from being butchered? The Communists in Russia followed 10 years later by the Nazis in Germany. Look it up.



Though I don't like the Idea of abortion I'm for it because it is somewhat a lesser evil senario.

What can be more evil than ripping a child to pieces inside her mother's womb?
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:46:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By IceHandLuke:
This scum bag wants to kill your baby. Anyone who thinks they are providing a service like this and give it no more thought than someone killing bugs is dangerous.


Baby killer



Came over here straight from the DU I'm guessing?
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:46:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By WindGapAR15:
baby is good eating too. I once had a helluva dead baby enchilada.



The other other other white meat?
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:46:35 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:46:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By PreMed_Gunner:
John Brown did, or attempted to anyway. I personally think the guy had the right idea.

Actually, most abolitionists still viewed Blacks as being subhuman, not quite as good as Whites. The reason they were anti-Slavery is the same reason someone would be against animal abuse: you feel sorry for the "animal" enough that you want to end its suffering.



What about Frederick Douglass?

He didn't think black people were sub-human. And yet he didn't go around killing slave owners.

Did he realize that combatting an evil system sanctioned by government required different strategies, or was he just a big wuss??




hmm... that would be debatable. I would say that certain infractions upon an individual(s)/group(s)' rights are deserving of violent conflict. For example, I would have supported Malcom X's position that Blacks needed to back up their rhetoric with the threat of armed conflict; however, I wouldn't say that Martin Luther King Jr.'s pacifistic approach was wrong.

Behind every pacifistic movement, there is an armed movement that gives its words weight. Ghandi's movement may have been peaceful, but was only successful due to other groups arming themselves and fighting the British colonial presence.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:47:58 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:49:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
But if someone honestly and sincerely believes that it is murder - the deliberate mass murder of innocent children, going on in public, before their very eyes - how are they going to answer that same question?


Very easily. The strategy has always been to borrow the tactics that the liberal Hitlery Klintons of the abortion industry used. March, write, protest, vote, send money, educate, never give up, and, when the times is right, as South Dakota just did, slam two torpedoes into the side of this barbaric modern version of child sacrifice.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:50:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PreMed_Gunner:
hmm... that would be debatable. I would say that certain infractions upon an individual(s)/group(s)' rights are deserving of violent conflict. For example, I would have supported Malcom X's position that Blacks needed to back up their rhetoric with the threat of armed conflict; however, I wouldn't say that Martin Luther King Jr.'s pacifistic approach was wrong.



Ultimately it was King's approach that won out. Even Malcom changed his rhetoric after going to Mecca. It wasn't the threat of the Black Panthers that changed people's minds about race. People didn't push for things like the 1964 Civil Rights Act because they were afraid of the Black Panther Party going around shooting people.



Behind every pacifistic movement, there is an armed movement that gives its words weight. Ghandi's movement may have been peaceful, but was only successful due to other groups arming themselves and fighting the British colonial presence.



Ghandi would disagree with that assesment, as would many historians.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:50:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 10:53:06 AM EDT by FunYun1983]

Originally Posted By Zippy_The_Wonderdog:
You like to present yourself as being quite convinced of your convictions, don't you? If you really view abortion clinics as organized murder...then why in the hell aren't you bombing them or trying to take out the doctor in question, you half assed whiny piker?

Otherwise, based upon your convictions, you are tantamount to nothing more than a sub-human apathetic WWII German grunt leading the Jews into the "showers" without raising a fuss just because it is your job and still finding some excuse to live with yourself.

I just don't understand the apathy of the vast, vast majority of anti-abortionists. They talk a big game about a horrific crime in their view...ritualized murder...but for the most part they are all talk and no real action. If I was aware of what I felt to be ritualized murder, I'd go apeshit and probably get more than a wee bit revolutionary.

But, I don't view it this way. It's an early mass of cells or something along the lines of a tadpole in a semi-human sense. It's is not murder. Maybe killing...but not murder. There is nothing wrong with killing.

Pro-lifers love to protest, but with their words plastered on bumper stickers and billboards you never hear about their voluntary financial support to the child when it is born. You have to deal with hard realities here...we live in a semi-socialistic society and entitlements are becoming the norm. This means entitlements to public child support. Do YOU want to pay for this? I certainly don't, and get your pesky hand out of my wallet!

As much of a capitalist as I am, and hate public programs, I am also pragmatic. Public spending on abortions? It has to be done. It is cheaper in the long run. Unfortuneately, you have to play by the rules every so often.

Flame away at me as you will, but spare me your biblical references and instead bring up objective arguements against abortion.



Originally Posted By IceHandLuke:
This scum bag wants to kill your baby. Anyone who thinks they are providing a service like this and give it no more thought than someone killing bugs is dangerous.


Baby killer




+1

Thats what I was going to say.


triburst1
I doubt it. The woman wouldn't want to put herself at that much risk. Say what you want, most women who would abort a baby are likely very selfish.



I don't think people care enough about anything to realy do anything about it. I'd say thats very selfish
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:53:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Belloc:
Very easily. The strategy has always been to borrow the tactics that the liberal Hitlery Klintons of the abortion industry used. March, write, protest, vote, send money, educate, never give up, and, when the times is right, as South Dakota just did, slam two torpedoes into the side of this barbaric modern version of child sacrifice.



There must be some sort of new pro-abortion talking points circulated, because I have been accused of not being a true enough believer several times now. Apparently the new tactic is to say that if you aren't out shooting people that you don't really believe what you say you believe.

I suppose the intent is either to cause a crisis of faith or to cause people to actually go around shooting abortion doctors. I don't suppose it ever occoured to the people making such arguements that pro-lifers like myself don't happen to be lobotomized chimps and are thus able to realize how utterly stupid the arguement is in the first place.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:53:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:

Originally Posted By Belloc:

What can be more evil than ripping a child to pieces inside her mother's womb?



that's easy..... Walmart



If you check the finish line camera abortion wins by a nose.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:54:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

If abortion became legal in some states, what would happen is the following.

1) It would NOT really affect wealthy and middle-class women at all, because they would simply travel to states that allow it. AGREE
2) There would be some "black market" abortions and do-it-yourself abortions, some resulting in serious injury/complications. MAYBE, but doubtful.
3) There would be a LOT more poor (often black) single women having kids, and putting a larger drain on our welfare system, or giving them up for adoption. NO FRIGGIN WAY! Abortion available NOW and has had little to no effect on that population!
4) there would be a small reduction in the pregnancy rate, but not huge because these people that are getitng pregnant now and having abortions are clearly idiots, who neither plan nor take responsibility for their behavior, so I don't see why their personalities would suddenly change just because some law was passed. I say no reduction in pregnancy rates, for the reasons you cite.



I am pro-life (in regard to abortion), but not a pro-lifer, if you catch the drift. The issue is about whether life is respected, not about population growth, birth control or other societal issues.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top