There is Everything Wrong with Abortion
What_You_Talkin_ Bout

Marcus Hook, PA

#230643 May 22, 2013
The Advocate wrote:
<quoted text>
Not only does your argument not make any sense at all, but you completely evaded a rebuttal of my post under the assumption that this garbage that you spout of "replacing one for the other" is apparently VERRRRY ethical to you, you uneducated SOB.
Lemme repeat again so your walnut sized brain can comprehend: WOMEN ARE NOT DISPOSABLE BABY MAKING MACHINES AND THEIR WORTH ISN'T DETERMINED BY WHAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT CARRY IN THEIR WOMBS.
Look alright, I said things wrong back there, or you understood them wrong. I didn't mean to say women are disposable, I never said their worth is determined by what they carry in their wombs either, no one deserves to die. What i want to say is, What gives them a right to determine if something should live or not? just because its in their wombs? well just because a child lives in his parent's house doesn't mean they can kill him just because it's their house. No one has the right to take a life or to stop one from happening. and im not a son of a bitch actually because my parents didn't decide to stop me from living.

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#230644 May 22, 2013
What_You_Talkin_Bout wrote:
<quoted text> Do you even know the definition of ignorant? Try looking up the word and you'll probably see your name there instead of mine. Am i really ignorant when i'm thinking about those "Wads of goo" not being able to live because the mother thinks it's nothing more than just that? Why even have unprotected sex if you know that you would end up getting an abortion if you came out pregnant? just to satisfy yourself for know that you stopped a life for existing? I think you might be calling the wrong people ignorant there, friend.
I would never call you friend.
You seem to think that all abortions are because women don't use birth control. That makes you an ignorant fool. ALL birth control has a failure rate, including surgical sterilization.
Most abortions are performed in the first trimester. WADS OF GOO. Not babies, not children, and not something that can be delivered via c-section and cared for outside the womb.
You really are an ignorant waste of space.

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#230645 May 22, 2013
What_You_Talkin_Bout wrote:
<quoted text> Look alright, I said things wrong back there, or you understood them wrong. I didn't mean to say women are disposable, I never said their worth is determined by what they carry in their wombs either, no one deserves to die. What i want to say is, What gives them a right to determine if something should live or not? just because its in their wombs? well just because a child lives in his parent's house doesn't mean they can kill him just because it's their house. No one has the right to take a life or to stop one from happening. and im not a son of a bitch actually because my parents didn't decide to stop me from living.
You really don't understand the difference between living breathing humans and wads of goo that cannot survive on their own, do you?
Too stupid to insult, because you're too stupid to understand even basic biology. Go back under your rock and mind your own business. Or would you like it if other people made YOUR medical decisions for you?
Women have the right within the first trimester to decide whether or not they want to attempt to carry a pregnancy to term. It is none of your business what decision they make.
thats my business

Glasgow, UK

#230646 May 22, 2013
who the feck are you life is precious to tell any person what they should be doing it is nothing to fecking do with you or any of your fecking half wits what a person wants to do
thats my business

Glasgow, UK

#230647 May 22, 2013
scumbags

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#230648 May 22, 2013
What_You_Talkin_Bout wrote:
<quoted text> If your mother to dispose of that "Wad of goo" you wouldn't even be here. by calling it "Wads of goo" you're making all of us sound unimportant. we are human beings and came from those "wads of goo" so we should be thankful our parents didn't dispose of them.
But the little wads of goo are not important at all. If they were, then nature would have been more careful with them. Instead, only about 1 in 5 manages to make it all the way from fertilized egg to live birth, and that is under the BEST of prenatal care. Go back a few decades, and you might be talking about one in TEN fertilized eggs reaching live birth.

Human being ARE important, but human beings are not little wads of goo, nor are little wads of goo human beings.
The Advocate

Mexico, Mexico

#230649 May 22, 2013
What_You_Talkin_Bout wrote:
<quoted text> Look alright, I said things wrong back there, or you understood them wrong. I didn't mean to say women are disposable, I never said their worth is determined by what they carry in their wombs either, no one deserves to die. What i want to say is, What gives them a right to determine if something should live or not? just because its in their wombs? well just because a child lives in his parent's house doesn't mean they can kill him just because it's their house. No one has the right to take a life or to stop one from happening. and im not a son of a bitch actually because my parents didn't decide to stop me from living.
Hurrrr durrr, you act as if there is no probable cause for women to even CONSIDER getting an abortion; and yeah, you DID imply that you believe women are disposable when you came up with that utter nonsense about you totally being okay if a mother dies in childbirth because it's "one life replacing the toher" or whatever other crap you "justified" that statement with.

It's mindboggling to see that your ilk refuses to even comprehend why abortions even EXIST in the first place.
The Advocate

Mexico, Mexico

#230650 May 22, 2013
"--the other." Typo fix.
ProLifeProphet

Winnipeg, Canada

#230651 May 22, 2013
Margaret Sanger (1883-1966)

Editor of The Birth Control Review from 1917 to 1938.

Founder of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the world.

Her goal in life:
Sanger admitted her entire life's purpose was to promote birth control. An Autobiography, p. 194

Helped to establish the research bureau that financed "the pill," she contributed toward the work of the German doctor who developed the IUD. "Ernst Graefenberg and His Ring," Mt. Sinai Journal of Medicine, July-Aug. 1975, p. 345, in Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society, by Elasah Drogin

Sanger espoused the thinking of eugenicists -- similar to Darwin's "survival of the fittest" -- but related the concept to human society, saying the genetic makeup of the poor, and minorities, for example, was inferior. Pivot of Civilization, by Margaret Sanger, 1922, p. 80

On mandatory sterilization of the poor:
One of Sanger's greatest influences, sexologist/eugenicist Dr. Havelock Ellis (with whom she had an affair, leading to her divorce from her first husband), urged mandatory sterilization of the poor as a prerequisite to receiving any public aid. The Problem of Race Regeneration, by Havelock Ellis, p. 65, in Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society, p. 18. Ellis believed that any sex was acceptable, as long as it hurt no one. The Sage of Sex, A Life of Havelock Ellis, by Arthur Calder-Marshall, p. 88

On eradicating 'bad stocks':
The goal of eugenicists is "to prevent the multiplication of bad stocks," wrote Dr. Ernst Rudin in the April 1933 Birth Control Review (of which Sanger was editor). Another article exhorted Americans to "restrict the propagation of those physically, mentally and socially inadequate."

The goal if this post was not only to discredit Planned Parenthood, but to crucify, pulverize, and bury this bitch SIX FEET DEEP AGAIN!
ProLifeProphet

Winnipeg, Canada

#230652 May 22, 2013
Margaret Sanger
Founder of Planned Parenthood

In Her Own Words

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race
(Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,''reckless breeders,''spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:
"This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, Happiness in Marriage (Bretano's, New York, 1927)

On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:
In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

On adultery:
A woman's physical satisfaction was more important than any marriage vow, Sanger believed. Birth Control in America, p. 11

On marital sex:
"The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order," Sanger said.(p. 23)[Quite the opposite of God's view on the matter: "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Hebrews 13:4)

On abortion:
"Criminal' abortions arise from a perverted sex relationship under the stress of economic necessity, and their greatest frequency is among married women." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On the YMCA and YWCA:
"...brothels of the Spirit and morgues of Freedom!"), The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On the Catholic Church's view of contraception:
"...enforce SUBJUGATION by TURNING WOMAN INTO A MERE INCUBATOR." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On motherhood:
"I cannot refrain from saying that women must come to recognize there is some function of womanhood other than being a child-bearing machine." What Every Girl Should Know, by Margaret Sanger (Max Maisel, Publisher, 1915)
ProLifeProphet

Winnipeg, Canada

#230653 May 22, 2013
Abortions worldwide this year:
16,332,252

Abortions in the world - sources and methods

Definition: An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death. An abortion can occur spontaneously due to complications during pregnancy or can be induced.(definition from Wikipedia)

Abortion as a term most commonly - and in the statistics presented here - refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy, while spontaneous abortions are usually termed miscarriages.

"This year" refers to the period from Jan 1 at 00:00 up to now.

The data on abortions displayed on the Worldometers' counter is based on the latest statistics on worldwide abortions published by the World Health Organization (WHO).

According to WHO, every year in the world an estimated 40-50 million women faced with an unplanned pregnancy decide to have an abortion. This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day.

http://www.worldometers.info/abortions/

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#230654 May 22, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
What difference would it make?
He'll only die once.
So the un-born human does not have the right to pro-choice as you do?

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#230655 May 22, 2013
Southern Reaper wrote:
<quoted text>
The ZEF exists when it is formed, of course. It doesn't gain sentience until the final trimester, however, and the mother is already fully sentient. I don't believe her rights should be curtailed in favor of a life form that has the potential to be born. My feelings on later pregnancy termination are a bit ambiguous, due to fetal sentience. However, I've never known a woman to go through nearly an entire pregnancy just to decide at the last minute she doesn't want to give birth, after all. Late term abortions occur because of problems, and they tend to be wanted pregnancies that went horribly wrong.
I can only feel sympathy for women faced with that decision. I will never know what it's like, myself.
I am mutual on this at the moment because every problem has a universally correct answer and I have yet discovered the universally correct answer to this matter. The foundation to my conscience decision making is universal and so must all of the decisions that I make must line up with this universal foundation, if not I would be holding and supporting contradictory thoughts and this I will not let happen because I finally achieved a universal conscience and it has been a very long and enduring journey getting to this state of awareness.

I am probing this problem by asking questions and giving scenarios because I stand for pro-choice and pro-life because I think if a person want to end their own life thru active euthanasia it's their choice and nobody else’s, because people should be able to choose their own destiny and because of this approach I am now faced with the situation that permits someone else to choose another human being destiny.

I am not certain but if a born human being or un-born human being is not able to choose for themselves the evidence is leaning towards the primary caretaker or guardian as having the right to make that choice for that born or un-born human being. The reason why is because only he/she has the right to think what is good and what is not good for the welfare of the un-born or born human who is unable to make decisions on his/her own when it comes to a life and death situation presented to the primary caretaker or guardian. This argument is not restricted to abortion it’s about making a choice of life and death for a born or un-born human being on a universal scale when the individual is not able to do it for themselves.

This is where I stand right now and I welcome input and thanks for commenting to my post!

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#230656 May 22, 2013
NWmoon wrote:
<quoted text>Depends on where she is. Laws differ. Regardless, it is the pregnant woman who decides whether or not to attempt to gestate to term.
Not yours, not the sperm donor, nobody else gets to determine that.
I am looking at this on the universal scale so gender is irrelevant on my approach to this problem and your answer is not acceptable on the universal scale because you're restricting a life and death situation to abortion only and this is not the case. This life/death situation is broader than that.

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#230657 May 23, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm..Neal himself said he slapped you.
Do you think I would have adopted her if I didn't think she needed a mother? I simply said that's why I didn't refer to raising her. Try thinking out of rationality, not your manic phase.
Well he said alot of things that were lies. And did alot of things and lied about it. He has never once apologized to me.
And yes if you adopted her you raised her. But apparently not very well.
I still say she left your sorry ass because she realized what a piece of trash you are.
Again I say smart girl.

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#230658 May 23, 2013
Life is Precious wrote:
<quoted text>Well he said alot of things that were lies. And did alot of things and lied about it. He has never once apologized to me.
And yes if you adopted her you raised her. But apparently not very well.
I still say she left your sorry ass because she realized what a piece of trash you are.
Again I say smart girl.
NOW Neal is a liar. What's funny is when he posted that, YOU agreed with him, and assured everyone that he had apologized.

Busted, yet again!

and what you think about me, my daughter, or anything else in my life has no relation to my reality. So you just have fun with that.

“What is it”

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#230659 May 23, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text> have you decided yet what your personal opinion is, between 'Fetuses are people with rights' and 'One can't murder something that isn't born'?
In case there is an injury to a pregnant mother, the fetus shall be treated as a member of homo sapiens and shall be the second victim of the crime in question.

To encroach on the freedom of a lady to decide whether or not she wants to continue with the pregnancy or not is indicative of a primitive mentality that observes women as baby producing machines.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#230660 May 23, 2013
wihangam wrote:
<quoted text>In case there is an injury to a pregnant mother, the fetus shall be treated as a member of homo sapiens and shall be the second victim of the crime in question.
To encroach on the freedom of a lady to decide whether or not she wants to continue with the pregnancy or not is indicative of a primitive mentality that observes women as baby producing machines.
You sound conflicted.

“What is it”

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#230661 May 23, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>You sound conflicted.
Why?

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#230662 May 23, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
What difference would it make?
He'll only die once.
True enough...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 min River Tam 864,875
Rajkot gay Topix 35 min chirag parmar 197
sex (May '13) 35 min vapi btm 180
Interracial Dating 53 min white stud 3
Is the problem of groping in India over exagger... (Jan '11) 58 min vipul 482
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Mia Copa 599,783
Sleeping with mother (Oct '13) 1 hr Dennis 42
The Christian Atheist debate 2 hr Justice League_ 2,009
White Lives MATTER 8 hr Burke Devlin 113
More from around the web