Anyone care to tell me what's wrong with this?

This was never a discussion about abortion. This was a thread about people praying to god and being thankful for being able to kill children because abortion is more than a morning after pill, it is also late term and partial birth abortion. 80% of Americans oppose partial birth abortion and these idiots (for lack of a better term) are thanking god for that! Even if you don't believe in god or religion you have to see just how fucked up this behavior is. The participants were all democrats by the way.

Just the kind of stupid, hateful, and very wrong post I have gotten to expect from one of our resident RWWs. Abortions are had by liberals and conservatives in similar proportions. Even "good girls" from well respected Thumper families and Thumper congregations have them.



Every time I read a post on this topic by someone with your posting history I can't help but wonder how many kids you have fathered and taken no responsibility for. How many you have fathered and insisted the mother have an abortion so you can run along with no fiscal responsibility. Sure would be curious to know what your sperm count is. So many of the RWW anti-abortion loudmouths I know brag in the locker room or at guys night out about the drunk women they've done bareback and how the "dumb bitch" has no idea they are the father because she was passed out when it happened. You'd probably fit right in with that crowd.
Originally Posted by Old-T

Whoa: you're using my posting history to draw way too many inferences about my personal history. I have no idea what my sperm count is, but unless those little buggers are capable of surviving saliva, stomach acid and hand sanitizer, my own hands are perfectly clean. As regards the Thumper thing, I've rarely set foot inside a Christian church. If God gave as much credit for the worshipful gratitude with which I visit the massage parlor, though, I would indeed be a saved man.

True: but it's not those people, but rather the liberal yuppie-chicks, who see abortion as a sacrament or status symbol. Your average hood-rat finds her prestige more in the production of illegitimate offspring--who are supported by the government. So the financial cost of abortion is not really a consideration for those most directly involved. Originally Posted by roaringfork

Good post, and good point made about the underclass treating popping out babies as a status symbol. My point is that if free abortion were available to these women the trend could be reversed, because the cost of abortion is a contributing factor in this mindset.

Is it your theory then, that people who oppose abortion are never victims or crimes? That must be one hell of a living room.

If so, shouldn't everybody oppose abortion and become immune to crime? Originally Posted by ExNYer

No, my belief is that the people who so strongly oppose abortion do not directly support the unwanted babies that they so dearly want born. We all indirectly support them with our tax dollars.

This was never a discussion about abortion. This was a thread about people praying to god and being thankful for being able to kill children because abortion is more than a morning after pill, it is also late term and partial birth abortion. 80% of Americans oppose partial birth abortion and these idiots (for lack of a better term) are thanking god for that! Even if you don't believe in god or religion you have to see just how fucked up this behavior is. The participants were all democrats by the way. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Of course this was started as a discussion of abortion no matter how veiled you attempted to make it. Your extended comment further supports your original intent. Now you have moved onto to the horrific late term abortion in an attempt to justify the banning of all abortions. Throwing god into the mix has no impact on me, and also mentioning Democrats has no relevance. I hate both parties.

That is just your OPINION about what I intended. Just to be very clear, I follow no faith or religious code. I do see the natural right of someone to be born and not torn apart by a "surgeon" in the uterus. I also recognize that this practice has been primarily used on the minority population just like the orginators planned in the early 20th century. I can also see the hypocrisy (which is too mild a word in this case) of elected officials calling upon a god (notice, no caps) to advance their "right" to kill babies (which is what it is, isn't it?), babies that are American citizens with certain inalienable rights.


I give you a person who DEFENDS the "right" of abortion; Judith Thomson. She is a supporter but read her words and you have to correctly conclude that under this argument abortion will truly be safe, rare, and legal and that millions of women, and their doctors, are guilty of the murder of innocents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion

Here is a teaser, actually interesting philosophy to read

Criticism

Critics of Thomson's argument (see the table below) generally grant the permissibility of unplugging the violinist, but seek to block the inference that abortion is permissible by arguing that there are morally relevant differences between the violinist scenario and typical cases of abortion. One notable exception being that of Peter Singer who claims that, despite our intuitions, a utilitarian calculus would imply that one is morally obliged to stay connected to the violinist.[12]
The most common objection is that Thomson's argument can justify abortion only in cases of rape. In the violinist scenario, you were kidnapped: you did nothing to cause the violinist to be plugged in, just as a woman who is pregnant due to rape did nothing to cause her pregnancy. But in typical cases of abortion, the pregnant woman had intercourse voluntarily, and thus has either tacitly consented to allow the fetus to use her body (the tacit consent objection), or else has a duty to sustain the fetus because the woman herself caused the fetus to stand in need of her body (the responsibility objection). Other common objections turn on the claim that the fetus is the pregnant woman's child whereas the violinist is a stranger (the stranger versus offspring objection), or that abortion kills the fetus whereas unplugging the violinist merely lets him die (the killing versus letting die objection).
Defenders of Thomson's argument[13] reply that the alleged disanalogies between the violinist scenario and typical cases of abortion do not hold, either because the factors that critics appeal to are not genuinely morally relevant, or because those factors are morally relevant but do not apply to abortion in the way that critics have claimed. A summary of common objections and responses is given below.
Less common objections to Thomson's argument (and the pro-choice responses) include:

• the natural-artificial objection:[14] pregnancy is a natural process that is biologically normal to the human species. The joined condition of the violinist and donor, in contrast, represents an extreme and unusual form of "life support" that can only proceed in the presence of surgical intervention. This difference is morally relevant and therefore the two situations should not be used to model each other. The pro-choice response would be to cite the naturalistic fallacy.
• the conjoined twins objection:[15] the relationship between conjoined twins represents a more complete analogy to pregnancy than the relationship between the violinist and the kidney donor. Because the fatal separation of conjoined twins is immoral, so is abortion. The pro-choice response would be to state that conjoined twins have equal claims to their shared organs, since they were conceived at the same time, in contrast to the fetus/prenatal offspring, who was conceived after his/her/its mother and whose claim to her body is thus inferior to that of the woman.[16]
• the different burdens objection:[17] supporting the violinist is a much greater burden than normal pregnancy, and so unplugging the violinist is morally permissible whereas aborting the fetus is not;
• the artificiality objection:[18] our intuitions on bizarre thought experiments of the sort used by Thomson are unreliable and provide no warrant for the conclusions they are intended to support. The pro-choice response would be that this is a thought experiment and thus it is not meant to be realistic.
• the duty to sustain the violinist objection:[19] despite the common intuition, one does have an obligation to support the violinist, and likewise the fetus.

Of course, critics of Thomson's analogy have replies to these responses,[14] and so the debate goes back and forth.

This was never a discussion about abortion. This was a thread about people praying to god and being thankful for being able to kill children because abortion is more than a morning after pill, it is also late term and partial birth abortion. 80% of Americans oppose partial birth abortion and these idiots (for lack of a better term) are thanking god for that! Even if you don't believe in god or religion you have to see just how fucked up this behavior is. The participants were all democrats by the way. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Lying sack of shit.

JD, nice post, but off base with me. I say the things that others will not say. One of my arguments is that abortion prevents the birth of another unwanted child who will only become a burden on society. I take a more realistic approach so you can throw out the very first assumption. Society has twisted the laws of evolution by supporting the lazy, and allowing them to pass on their genes. Natural selection would have weeded these people out and mankind would be further advanced than we are today.

Under the current system these little darlings are born, supported by you and me and then turn into monsters. Our convoluted legal system is now ready to jump into action sentencing the monster to prison, where again you and I support him. Do you see a trend here? The judge has wielded his mighty gavel and sentenced this little darling to 3 years for murder. Of course the death he created is never taken into account by the anti-abortion groups. Dare I mention Chris Lane. If those thugs had been aborted he would be walking around today, and society would be better off.

Next this little precious darling is released from prison where he has honed his murderous skills. Within a month he is handcuffed in the back of a police cruiser to begin the cycle again. I do not believe in rehabilitation because these people were never habilitated in the first place.

An unwanted baby becomes an unwanted teen, becomes an unwanted adult. I don't adhere to the mores that abortion is wrong. I take the realistic approach that it has a very strong place in society, and it would benefit society to make it free. That would be much cheaper than supporting them their entire life.

the pro-life advocates are always the last ones willing to help out all of these unwanted kids.

Let them live but bitch about welfare.

Let them live but bitch about welfare. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

That surely sounds like you think that any babies that are NOT aborted, must automatically end up on the welfare rolls. Surely that isn't what you actually think is it? I mean, you'd never be so racist as to automatically assume that any child born to a single black mother could never make anything of himself/herself so as to become a productive, functioning, tax paying member of our society, right?

That makes sense. That is why ALL crack babies are libtards! They get hooked on the crack and can't get off.

They are wanting to prevent crack babies from becoming republican. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Its really funny because Planned Parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger, a devout racist who created the Negro Project which was designed to sterilize unknowing black women and anyone whom she deemed as undesirables of society. She said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated."

It shows that libtards don't care to know the facts. Including racism as conservatives fought throughout history to make blacks equal with whites while libtards started the KKK and created the Jim Crowe laws.

It is soooooooo easy to become a libtard. All you have to do is say "no work necessary" and "free" and they are hooked. Its the modern form of slavery.

Give a man a fish feed him for a day - Liberals
Teach a man to fish feed him for a lifetime - Conservatives

I wonder how many of our friends on this board actually support JL/Rock's rhetoric?

That makes sense. That is why ALL crack babies are libtards! They get hooked on the crack and can't get off. Originally Posted by therock18

You were a crack baby right?

You keep using the term "unwanted" when referring to aborted babies. "Unwanted" does not mean unnecessary or unimportant. Considering the way he was treated I would say that our beloved Barry was unwanted. Many great men and women were unwanted when they were born and they overcame that disadvantage to do great things for the world. Benjamin Franklin comes to mind. Henry Ford is another. How about Rudolph King who become Gerald Ford and saved lives in World War II.

I always love the argument by the confused left when they say that a tree or plant in the Amazon rain forest may be the plant that contains the cure for cancer. We don't know it but if we continue to clear the rain forest then we will never have the cure. They turn around and support abortion. Who knows which little baby will grow up to be the scientist who discovers the cure for cancer. If we keep aborting children wholesale then we will lose the next man to invent a way to save blood for transfusions. We are throwing away a valuable resource.

JD speaks from experience as he was unwanted and still is...