Reply With Quote
local tree-hugger, correct me where im wrong.
maybe im wrong, but why do i get the prevailing sense that tree-huggers have screwed up priorities?
they say:
"hey! let's go out of our way and save these and these:
but, you know..
we can let all these 'unborn' babies be brutally murdered:
right. that makes perfect sense.
how the crap did you get your priorities so messed up?
by no means am i saying let the environment go to waste - no, not at all.
im just saying, maybe you should look after your own kind with the same passion and energy you put into making sure we don't 'hurt the trees.'
what makes those more important than an innocent baby?
it really sickens me when i see how screwed up your priorities are.
seriously.
you call yourself "pro-choice"?
i can agree with you that you CHOSE to have sex, that you couldn't control yourself.
but now, don't be so irresponsible and learn to take action for your CHOICE.
why don't we let the child have a CHOICE?
what do you think he would CHOOSE? life or death?
how's that for pro-CHOICE?
local tree-hugger, correct me where im wrong.
Babies give off carbon dioxide. Trees give off oxygen.
Christians say they are pro-life, but they have killed more people than cancer.
Good point Honest.
abortion has it's place in society, so does helping the environment we all live in
Are you even old enough to vote?maybe im wrong, but why do i get the prevailing sense that tree-huggers have screwed up priorities?
they say:
"hey! let's go out of our way and save these and these:
but, you know..
we can let all these 'unborn' babies be brutally murdered:
right. that makes perfect sense.
how the crap did you get your priorities so messed up?
by no means am i saying let the environment go to waste - no, not at all.
im just saying, maybe you should look after your own kind with the same passion and energy you put into making sure we don't 'hurt the trees.'
what makes those more important than an innocent baby?
it really sickens me when i see how screwed up your priorities are.
seriously.
you call yourself "pro-choice"?
i can agree with you that you CHOSE to have sex, that you couldn't control yourself.
but now, don't be so irresponsible and learn to take action for your CHOICE.
why don't we let the child have a CHOICE?
what do you think he would CHOOSE? life or death?
how's that for pro-CHOICE?
Abortion has fallen to its lowest level in 30 years under R v. W. Shut the up and get back to the Spurs forum.
I wonder how Pro Life people would feel if their brother or sister raped them and they were pregnant with the deformed fetus of that action- I know they will probably say "It's life and you should love it" - but assume the baby has some mental capacity when it reaches 16, would you like to know you are a product of an incest rape? wouldn't that really mess you up?
I'm saying this because some people (Sarah Palin included) are against abortion even in situations like this- that is crazy.
I'd have a bit more respect for the pro-life point of view if they didn't support the GOP, which has no interest in these kids once they're born.
Also, the crime rate has fallen dramatically since R v. W because the people aborting kids are the least equipped to take care of them
You can prove the corrolation between those two?
Read Freakonomics.
Opinon-based book, not without adverse criticism and counter point.
But, condeding that one equals the other, since abortion rates are at their lowest in 30 years (as you pointed out earlier), should we then see a subsequent increase in crime rates?
Oh great, an abortion thread. We'll have lots of reasoned discussion, everyone will enter with an open mind!
Let's say girl is raped, is found to be pregnant, but THINKS that the child is from her boyfriend/husband, not rapist. The baby is born and it is apparent it is the rapists. (far-reaching hypothetical, I know, but bear with me). In your mind, can she NOW kill that child? You will probably answer "no" .
People who are pro-life see the fetus as you see the child. There is nothing hypocritical about the position. It is consistent. The difference is, simply, when they ascribe humanness to the child - some number of months earlier than other people do.
the problem is that there are cases where abortion is needed, or atleast warranted- and there are case of abuse. The problem is that there is no way to have one without the other. I've always said this is regards to abortion: I'm a male, I will never be pregnant so it's not an issue that I need to get myself knee deep in. I think that if you don't support abortion than you shouldn't have one- your life won't change whether or not someone you don't even know has one. It's their choice and they will have to deal with the consequences
Perhaps. I believe the pro-life forces have done a great job of changing at udes towards abortion. The point being, outlawing the procedure is just going to lead to women bleeding to death in back alleys.
Didn't God murder women and children in the old testament? In some cases even ordered the death of entire cities? He even said to kill the animals. That's hardcore. I'm still waiting for the movie.
Again, most who are anti-abortion are intellectually consistent. The life of the fetus does not trump the life of the mother, or another fetus.
The cir stances of the creation of the fetus, as life, are irrelevant. If you could step away from the cringe factor involved with rape and incest, you would see this as being morally consistent. The other view, frankly, is not; that abortion should be outlawed EXCEPT in the case of.....that is removing the rights of the fetus through no actions of its own; simply cir stance.
Real Biblical scholar here.Didn't God murder women and children in the old testament? In some cases even ordered the death of entire cities? He even said to kill the animals. That's hardcore. I'm still waiting for the movie.
We get it. You don't like Christians.
Bravo for you.
yeah, im old enough to vote.
so because it's dropping a little (20 out of 1000 women got an abortion in 2004 vs 29 out of 1000 in 1980), it's OK to kill all these babies?
and there is such thing is giving up the baby for adoption.
Religion adapts and changes with the times. Or changes for whatever is convenient at the time.
I don't mind Christians at all. I just think they are a little misguided.
Most take the stories in the bible literally instead of metaphorically. The bible has good stories that teach good lessons, but it's closer to poetry than it is to a history book.
You are a cliche.
It's a pretty dumb criterion to base your vote on. The status quo isn't changing, so you might as well grow up and base your vote on something else.
Abortion will NEVER cease to exist. Right now it's safe, legal and rare. What you're really saying is that you prefer women to bleed to death in back alleys instead of getting proper medical attention in a hospital. I find that uncivilized.
rare?
in the united states alone:
number of abortions per year: 1.37 million (1996)
number of abortions per day: approximately 3700
and don't stick words in my mouth. never did i say what you suggested i said.
when people bring up the rape issue, it is extremely idiotic, considering this:
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
do a little research before you open your mouth and spew lies you know nothing about.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
