About | GFraizer | Contact

Links

Drudge Report
Fox News
TMZ
Reddit

     FlyingStarman.com

Cali-Drivers-Suck.com

RSS


MANAGE BOOKMARKS


USER:

PASS:


LOST PASSWORD
CREATE NEW ACCOUNT

Connect



Latest Videos



Support Me
[Main Amazon Wishlist]
[Amazon Emergency Wishlist]


Exclusive Photos
[How to Pump Gas]
[Fat Lady + Donuts]
[Dog Bike]







Tuesday, January 21st, 2014SUGGEST NEWS

I Am Overwhelmed by 55 Million Babies Killed Since Roe v. Wade
Posted by: Nebuchadnezzar on January 21st, 2014 @ 10:50AM

Crazy

Then, I thought of the more than 55,000,000 lives that have been taken in the U.S. since 1973, and I became overwhelmed at the tragedy. Tragedy for the babies, their mothers, their fathers, families, and us.

COMMENTS (18) | RELIGION | DIGG
COMMENTS
ADD COMMENTS | SEND TO A FRIEND | BOOKMARK | SORT LAST TO FIRST
Smokin Joe
Marine

January 21st, 2014 @ 1:07PM

Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2784
Is this article a sick fucking joke?

The fact that this is written by a woman makes it all the more embarrassing.

Roe v. Wade was monumental for women's rights. If this woman wants to do away with it, move to some sharia law country, because you deserve none of the rights that thousands of women fought for.
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist

January 21st, 2014 @ 2:13PM

Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2764
What is "Sick" is the fact we've killed 55 fucking million babies in this country; a number that pales compared to anything Hitler has ever done; yet people like you defend it as if the lives of our unborn young are equivalent to giving women the right to vote.

Smokin Joe
Marine

January 21st, 2014 @ 3:17PM

Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2784
yet people like you defend it as if the lives of our unborn young are equivalent to giving women the right to vote.

No, I argue that you provide the choice. Women aren't obligated to get an abortion, every one of them has to make that conscious choice. If you're against it, don't choose to do it. And just stop with the fact that we're killing babies, they are not fucking babies. They have not been born.

There are limits to when a woman can get an abortion. The fact that you compare the women's right to choose to Hitler's genocide is another disturbing example of how fucking stupid people are when trying to understand this.

You want less abortions? Spend more money with planned-parenthood. Provide those mothers who would otherwise drastically decrease their personal standard of living while raising a child in a substandard household with something to encourage them to keep their child.

Get some fucking perspective. Oh wait, that's right, you have to wait for God's will to provide it to you.

Most pro-lifers are one accidental pregnancy away from being pro-choice.

EDITED: 2014-01-21 15:18:34
justinr
Marine

January 21st, 2014 @ 3:27PM

Registered:
2003-04-13
Location:
Houston, TX
Posts: 273
I'll never understand how people consider unborn matter to be a person. This is a debate that will never be "won". The world is already overpopulated and only getting worse. I see no issue with people who don't want their babies to be born to stop it from happening. 1 less drain on the world's resources. As much as everyone wants to live in a Merry Poppins world that everyone is a special snowflake blah blah blah ... it's my opinion that if a parent doesn't wanna be a parent, better to stop it before they're born than when they dump their kid at an orphanage or worse.

Where's all the people picketing and talking about all the other millions of atrocious things that happen to LIVING PEOPLE on a daily basis? Why are we not overseas picketing against women who are beaten, raped, or murdered in extremeist countries? Because fighting abortion is a white collar "easy" thing for people to get up in arms about. There's so much more wrong in the world that is 10 times worse than abortion yet people would rather focus so much energy on this 1 thing that doesn't even directly affect them.

EDITED: 2014-01-21 15:32:09
Jubedgy
Marine

January 21st, 2014 @ 3:47PM

Registered:
2003-03-26
Location:
Groton, CT
Posts: 318
I belive Roe v. Wade to be a bad decision, similar to how Plessy v. Ferguson was a bad decision. By the 10th amendment, the states individually have a right to choose whether or not to allow abortions.

One could make a case that abortion is a civil right and thus is precluded from being abridged by the states by the 14th amendment, but at what point does the aborted baby/fetus/organism gain rights? At birth? At viability? At conception?

This problem, frankly, is something that each state should answer itself since a one-size-fits-all solution clearly does not work (see Charkoth and Smokin Joe above) and is an issue that Federalism is designed to address.

As someone with an agnostic point of view, I personally believe that, in general though not in every case, the choice of abortion indicates a large moral failing in that woman. I also believe that if women can choose whether or not to bring a baby to term, men should be able to choose whether or not they will provide support...both actions are morally equivalent.
Smokin Joe
Marine

January 21st, 2014 @ 4:06PM

Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2784
This problem, frankly, is something that each state should answer itself since a one-size-fits-all solution clearly does not work (see Charkoth and Smokin Joe above) and is an issue that Federalism is designed to address.

How is offering a choice not a size-fits-all-solution? If the person is against abortion, they can choose not to have one. Fairly simple to me.

As someone with an agnostic point of view, I personally believe that, in general though not in every case, the choice of abortion indicates a large moral failing in that woman.

That type of generalization shows little to no thought as to the context of the woman's decision. I find that incredibly close-minded.

You mention "though not in every case" well please tell me what kind of portion that means? A statistically insignificant number? 50%? What?

I also believe that if women can choose whether or not to bring a baby to term, men should be able to choose whether or not they will provide support...both actions are morally equivalent.

Enlighten me as to how on Earth this is equivalent. All I see is you placing the responsibility of child birthing/bearing/raising solely on the woman. Are you saying that a man has no obligation to raising the child he is 50% responsible for?

EDITED: 2014-01-21 17:13:54
killer6600
Marine

January 21st, 2014 @ 7:31PM

Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1699
this is one of those things that seems to make joe froth at the mouth

abortion isn't great, neither is forcing a woman to be an incubator. seems that jubedgy thinks that women shouldn't get abortions, but that it should be left to the states, not the federal government to decide, and that if a state decides its legal than he's ok with that, it's just not for him. which seems to be what you want from people who don't like abortion, joe.

also men do get shit on repeatedly in the case of children and abortion every single day. it shouldn't just be dismissed out of hand if a man gets a woman pregnant and he doesn't want anything to do with that child and/or woman afterwards that she can and does elect to keep it that she should not have some sort of personal responsibility to pay more than 50% if not all of it. it goes to having kids isn't a right it's a choice, you choose to have kids, you take care of it if you're going it alone
BiVRiP
General

January 21st, 2014 @ 11:49PM

Registered:
2003-05-11
Location:
Canada
Posts: 2345
One could make a case that abortion is a civil right and thus is precluded from being abridged by the states by the 14th amendment, but at what point does the aborted baby/fetus/organism gain rights? At birth? At viability? At conception?

That's essentially what the Supreme Court said in their ruling. I'd argue that because nobody can come to terms on when life begins is precisely why abortion shouldn't be a States rights issue. By allowing each State to determine if/when abortion should be legal you're effectively discriminating against women over a medical procedure using subjective criteria.

If controlled at the federal level, those who don't want or approve of abortions can choose not to have them. If controlled at the state level, those who do choose to have an abortion are either faced with the prospect of having to potentially travel hundreds of miles to have the procedure done in a safe regulated environment or take their chances locally with someone who claims to be doctor working out of some back-alley setup.
The Fu
Peon

January 22nd, 2014 @ 2:46AM

Registered:
2004-02-08
Location:
Northeast USA
Posts: 66
I`d argue that because nobody can come to terms on when life begins

Isn`t that precisely why we should be extra cautious? Medicine surprises us often when it comes to the viability of a premature baby. I don`t see how you cannot want to err on the side of caution. I don`t care about overpopulation etc. You don`t kill your own children to solve even a serious problem. And for those who don`t see a child, you`re lying to yourself. I sat there in the hospital as my wife went through a difficult pregnancy (one that nearly took her life) and I watched every ultrasound. I saw my son doing things in the womb that he still did in bed long after he was born. I heard his heartbeat, saw his fingers and toes, watched him yawn and sleep. That was life and if not human life then what other kind? For some bacteria or virus inside you doesn`t become a human baby, then a toddler, then a young man or woman, then a mom or dad, then a grandma, or grandpa. These are people that are being killed and you`re OK with it because you can`t see or hold them. Do an image search for abortion. Look at the tiny human bodies torn apart. Take a good long look at them because their lives are on us all.
Smokin Joe
Marine

January 22nd, 2014 @ 5:10PM

Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2784
this is one of those things that seems to make joe froth at the mouth

Mostly because it turns so many Libertarian/Federalist folk into fascist authoritarians.

And for those who don`t see a child, you`re lying to yourself.

It's not a god damn baby. People spend thousands of dollars and become massively educated in a field and yet you still don't believe the experts?

You obviously weren't going to abort the baby because this organism meant so much to you - you think that you're the only person to look at it that way?

You think that everyone that chooses to have an abortion is heartless and cold? You think that it's somehow an easy decision?

Well, it's not. It weighs heavily on those involved and stays with them forever. It's one of the toughest choices around and I would rather it stay just that, a choice.
BiVRiP
General

January 22nd, 2014 @ 5:31PM

Registered:
2003-05-11
Location:
Canada
Posts: 2345
Isn`t that precisely why we should be extra cautious?

I think there is merit to that argument. While I am pro-choice, from the literature I've read I do have reservations/concerns about abortions taking place in the third trimester. I don't think it's unreasonable to question if the scales should tilt in favor of the fetus over the rights of the mother at that stage of the game.

I do however reject the latter part of your post. It's a classic logical fallacy you're making there - an appeal to emotion. I can easily argue the other extreme. You can't reasonably equate a 1 month old embryo much less a zygote to that of a newborn child, at least not from a biological standpoint.
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist

January 23rd, 2014 @ 7:12AM

Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2764
It's simple. You don't want a baby, don't have sex. Want to have sex? Be prepared to face the consequences of doing so. This impacts the man as well as the woman. There is no discrimination involved when the rules are known up front.

That was a great post by The Fu. He wasn't appealing to "emotion", he was appealing to a sense of morality that you people lack. This isn't a "Rights" issue, it is a moral issue.

This isn't even about religion either, the reason Christians are typically pro-life is because a Christian is ultimately going to be a moral person. God doesn't discuss abortion anywhere other than the fact that life is sacred and any person with middling intelligence can draw the conclusion from there.

Liberals just never want people to take responsibility for their owns actions.




EDITED: 2014-01-23 15:17:28
killer6600
Marine

January 23rd, 2014 @ 2:42PM

Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1699
being afraid of god isn't morality, dont' get those confused
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist

January 23rd, 2014 @ 3:19PM

Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2764
Is that what you think it is? Do you think we're Christian because we fear God or hell?

I can see why a nonbeliever would think that but the core of Christianity is built around a love for God, not a fear of him.

Regardless, our conscience and morality is God-given and natural. Also, you SHOULD fear God, it is normal to fear anything you can't comprehend.
killer6600
Marine

January 23rd, 2014 @ 5:42PM

Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1699
I dunno, anytime I hear someone say that they'd cheat on their wife if it wasn't for god it doesn't scream morality at me.
BiVRiP
General

January 23rd, 2014 @ 6:44PM

Registered:
2003-05-11
Location:
Canada
Posts: 2345
It's simple. You don't want a baby, don't have sex.

While technically accurate, from a pragmatic viewpoint that's incredibly naive. Putting aside situations where a women are sexually assaulted against their will, logic pretty much goes out the window when you're talking about hormonal teens and peer pressure. That's not to say it's an excuse, but you can't simply ignore those variables - teens and young adults are going to have sex regardless of the consequences. It's no small wonder that teen pregnancy rates in the bible belt states are 2-3x higher than the rest of the United States. Abstinence only sex-ed for everybody!


Ripped from wiki - The appeal to emotion fallacy uses emotions as the basis of an argument's position without factual evidence that logically supports the major ideas endorsed by the elicitor of the argument.

I'm not slamming Fu's post and I doubt it was his/her intent to use the fallacy - lots of people do it all the time and they're not even aware of it. When the foundation of your argument is in whole or in part built around statements like "These are people that are being killed and you`re OK with it because you can`t see or hold them. Do an image search for abortion. Look at the tiny human bodies torn apart." you are attempting (even if it's not deliberate) to illicit an emotional reaction to bolster your point of view and/or obfuscate the opposing viewpoint instead of allowing the merits of the facts to be scrutinized.

A more compelling pro-life viewpoint would be to show how by the 3rd trimester the fetus is fully formed - the central nervous system has developed, the brain and cerebral cortex (the latter which plays a key role in memory, attention, perceptual awareness, thought, language, and consciousness) is present. I'd point out that due to advances in medical science doctors can now provide a 50/50 chance for a fetus to survive and grow when born prematurely at 5.5 months (albeit with significant health risks).

And not to play the role of a troll but I find it somewhat amusing you say this isn't about religion, that this is a morals issue but then go on to say that one's morals and conscience are God-given so by extension if you don't believe or reject God you lack morals. As blasphemous as this may sound to you, the bible does not have exclusive or authoritative say on what is right or wrong.
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist

January 24th, 2014 @ 6:52AM

Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2764
Bivrip, "Bible belt" states contain a far higher concentration of poorly or un-educated Americans and there is a strong correlation between education and birthrate.

This issue is far far more complicated than any absolute either of us can come up with but the obvious conclusion we can draw is the problem is getting worse and worse. Preaching "Abstinence" isn't any different than promoting seat belt use. Talking about seat belt safety isn't going to ensure everyone wears one, but it will increase the odds they do and thus lower deaths from accidents. In society today we've created a culture where the majority of teens are running around promiscuously and this is only getting worse. Small piece of the overall problem but if we can't even agree on that, what is the point of discussing it further?

As to Fu's post, his appeal to emotion is a LOGICAL fallacy and so yes isn't suitable for debate from a wholly rational standpoint. Normally I'll argue from a completely logical standpoint as I'm pretty limited when it comes to my emotions but I feel we lose something at some point if we completely lose touch with our emotions. Logical arguments make us less "human" and when discussing life or death matters I think a human element is good for us. Not sure if that all makes sense to you or not.

The Fu
Peon

January 27th, 2014 @ 6:33AM

Registered:
2004-02-08
Location:
Northeast USA
Posts: 66
I`m just getting around to reading the comments here and thanks Charkoth. You basically said what I was going to say. Logic covers much of life but logic does not govern parental concern for a child. We often do very illogical things when taking care of our children. If you use only logic to govern the arguments surrounding human life then you are building a bit of a scary world. The bottom line is that even from the very beginning, the fetus/zygote/whatever is growing and alive and the parents of that life are human making that life human. Logic states that it`s just a collection of cells but then again, aren`t we all? Emotions should come into situations such as abortion. As a man, I tend to shun them in arguments in good part because it makes it so much easier to break down the argument and possibly win. But when it comes to defending human life, you should defend it emotionally.


You are unable to add Comments because you are not
logged in. If you have an account please login in now.

You can Create an Account, it takes less then a minute.



Return to top