George Walker Bush

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

Who am i to decide punishment?

You're an American citizen, just like I am. We help make the rules, and I asked what your opinion is. Taking the "who am I to decide" route is one that conveniently skirts the issue.

Im saying it needs to be illegal. We have killed more people in the last year with abortions then we have since the start of the Iraq war

What the hell kind of a comparison is that? First off, I'm guessing you're only taking into account US military deaths, which is soooo wrong on quite a few levels. Secondly, you're comparing a war to terminating a pregnancy, which is not only completely unrelated but incredibly inflammatory. It's like saying "Think of how many people died on one day during 9/11! Imagine a 9/11 every day for a year! That's abortion for you!"

This is a situation where I've met a lot of people who get all red-faced when talking about the "evils of abortion" and about how it should be illegal, but most of them, after talking it through, have never thought about what it would be like IF it were illegal. They just want it gone for religious/moral reasons, but usually do this same hedging when asked what the consequence should be.

[HateTheFake]

You're an American citizen, just like I am. We help make the rules, and I asked what your opinion is. Taking the "who am I to decide" route is one that conveniently skirts the issue.


What the hell kind of a comparison is that? First off, I'm guessing you're only taking into account US military deaths, which is soooo wrong on quite a few levels. Secondly, you're comparing a war to terminating a pregnancy, which is not only completely unrelated but incredibly inflammatory. It's like saying "Think of how many people died on one day during 9/11! Imagine a 9/11 every day for a year! That's abortion for you!"

This is a situation where I've met a lot of people who get all red-faced when talking about the "evils of abortion" and about how it should be illegal, but most of them, after talking it through, have never thought about what it would be like IF it were illegal. They just want it gone for religious/moral reasons, but usually do this same hedging when asked what the consequence should be.

It is indeed the same for me, whos to say that 1 life is greater then another. No matter the age.

-Money im sure if you asked any of those kids in foster care if they rather be aborted what would you think their answers would be

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

It is indeed the same for me, whos to say that 1 life is greater then another. No matter the age.

So you're against the Iraq war? Afghanistan? The death penalty?

Still waiting on your proposed penalty for abortion...

[Money]

-Money im sure if you asked any of those kids in foster care if they rather be aborted what would you think their answers would be

well i dont think u can abort someone who is already 15 years old? a tiny spec in your body tho? thats different nothing is developed..

[Squeezer]

So you're against the Iraq war? Afghanistan? The death penalty?

Still waiting on your proposed penalty for abortion...

once you're outta the womb, you're fair game sucka foo.

and we got big ol bombs instead of mangy ass coat hangers too.

birfday rhyme!

[MetalHeadz]

ITT: more europeans explain americas problems to americans

It's because America is full of people like you.

[Epinephrine]

I did a D&C once, although it was going to terminate spontaneously anyway as the lady was bleeding, but this was to make sure the woman didn't die of bleeding.

[Money]

It's because America is full of people like you.

and if we were full of ppl like you we would kill ourselves

[Liquid Blue]

It is indeed the same for me, whos to say that 1 life is greater then another. No matter the age.

-Money im sure if you asked any of those kids in foster care if they rather be aborted what would you think their answers would be

Like Money asked earlier, how many ants or mosquito's have you killed? Are you Buddhist and truly believe that one life is of the same value as another, or does that only apply to humans for you? If you think the value of life only matters in concerns to humans, how can you stick by your earlier statement of saying that who are you to judge?

If you don't think it's your place to judge what types of punishments should fall on girls who get raped and wind up pregnant, then who are you to judge that a human life is more important than an ant's life, than a dogs life, than a whale's life?

The reason why you cannot logically compare the deaths in a war to abortions is because an obvious percentage of deaths in war are of soliders, who made a choice to join a cause they knew they could die fighting for. They willingly put themselves in the line of fire and as such are no comparison to babies that were terminated due to whatever situation the mother was in (due to her not being able to realistically care for the baby once it was born, the drastic health concerns and amounts of money it would have taken to have the mother carry the baby for the full term, or babies born out of rape and incest).

A life is a life? Do you understand how expensive it is for a woman to carry a child until birth, how emotionally and physically taxing it is? Especially with little to no support from her parents? Especially if the woman was raped? Or raped by a family member? Is every case of abortion just "some chick had unprotected sex and doesn't want to deal with the consequences" to you?

Do you understand how rampant physical and sexual abuse is in the foster care system, as well as neglect? That for every child where the parents can't take care of them, a foster home is not always the answer?

EDIT- God dammit Metalheadz, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

[Jerome Scuggs]

You're an American citizen, just like I am. We help make the rules, and I asked what your opinion is. Taking the "who am I to decide" route is one that conveniently skirts the issue.

Technically the "who am I to decide" route would correctly describe how American politics should work. The 18th century was a pretty big year for that question. The Constitution is the decider. The guideline goes like, 1) did the act harm an individual? 2) Did the act harm an individual's property?

edit: I've never really given thought to the abortion issue very deeply. Even though you have probably scarred me in ways that won't manifest until later in life, watching the Pallies TWLB videos at age 14 did teach me one thing: to pull out. In sparing me from having to deal with abortion, I will spare you my ideas on abortion. I'll put them in a separate post.

[Jerome Scuggs]

I've tried to find any concrete answer to the abortion question as far as human rights go, like when is a fetus, a human? What if the mother's life is endangered? Etc, etc. I think that it is fairly certain though, amongst many people, that at some point a human is harmed, and at that point then yes, the Government has the right to intervene on behalf of that person.

The problem is, of course, that no two humans on Earth can agree on the what and when and how of "abortion".

But as HateTheFake unknowingly points out, abortion isn't quite murder. Yes, both are violations of basic rights - but so is theft, yet "theft" is obviously different from "murder".

This is where, and why, the 10th Amendment steps in. It reserves any power not specifically given to the Federal Government "to the States respectively, or to the people."

I think that at the very least, the question of abortion's legality/morality/whatever should be decided at least the state level. There's no reason otherwise, if anything, the current scheme is precisely the reason for the 9th and 10th amendments. It's obvious that abortion is a massively decisive issue - and so if the Federal Government enacts one group's law, one group's ideas on the what and when and how of abortion, it's pretty obvious that there's going to always be a large amount of pissed off people, which pretty much guarantees that abortion will be legalized and banned and re-legalized until Hell breaks loose (in part perhaps because of all the baby-killers' souls filling it past capacity).

Fuck, how is that in any way "democracy" or even fucking "orderly conduct" or anything resembling a decent society?

Let the states decide. At that level, the people at least have the freedom to relocate to a place where their beliefs on abortion are the best satisfied. If you devolved the power to an even lower level, like municipal, then it becomes too complicated, as issues of geography and location and citizenship status amongst others cloud the issue too much.

Given that the power is reserved for the States and the People, I think it follows that such laws would be put up to a State-wide vote. This means that people can directly express their beliefs. You then see this process happen in 50 different places, as each State puts up various proposed laws/amendments/etc. People can then vote with their ballot as well as their wallet, by choosing to move to certain States or even 'boycott' other States.

In short, the abortion debate would become just like the gay marriage debate, which means retard states like California can take three steps backwards just as my home state is moving in the direction of being the first Southern state to fully legalize it. Yeah, it seems crazy and shitty now, but in the long-run I think every State will let the gays marry, just because at some point people who belong to our generation(s) will get into office. Acceptance of 'gay culture' is spreading very rapidly.

Likewise, letting States try to each provide the best answer to a complex issue like abortion would be a small step in making everyone just a wee-bit happier.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

It's good to know that the TWLB videos served a dual purpose as a sex ed video. Someone email a link to Obama and we can start serving shit up wholesale.

[Cops]

Jerome; Abortion can't change state to state otherwise you're going to see a lot of states have careless deaths from women trying to find someone, or god forbid themselves to do their own abortion.

I can see the massive amounts of problems from abortion being outlawed in certain states. I think states and provinces for that matter deserve a lot of rights over the federal government, but aside from the religious debacle surrounding abortion there's health reasons why it's not outlawed. Like I said before, regardless if you or I like abortion it's going to happen. So why not try to provide people with all the facts and options and let people make an educated decision? Some people are going to get an abortion regardless, but before you let someone get an abortion the least you can do is find out if they know anything about adoption or programs pregnant women can use. I think women at that point are feeling anything but secure in who they are. They need someone to talk to that's willing to give them all the facts and options out there before going ahead with an abortion. They need to know 'their options'.

The gay-marriage issue is a totally separate issue on its own. God will decide whether to bless a marriage or not, neither you or me have any inclination whether or not 'God' approves or disapproves of my wedding. Ministers and Priests will ultimately decide whether they will marry someone or not. In their church they are gods messengers. The federal government as well as the state government has no business sanctifying or dismissing any marriage passed through gods messenger. Just like church has no business in the state, while the state has no business in the church.

It is up to the federal government to use its 'limited' powers to protect homosexual couples for legal purposes. I for one would like to see the states realize and overcome adversity without the hand of the federal government. However, strictly from a legal position the federal government must provide its people with some legal protection. All I'm talking about here is some god damn recognition on birth documents, taxes, etc etc. If your state doesn't want to recognize gay couples on the same platitude as hetero-couples, fine. But you can't deny Millions of people, yes Millions of people legal protection because they're not part of a traditional union.

[Pandagirl!]

well i dont think u can abort someone who is already 15 years old? a tiny spec in your body tho? thats different nothing is developed..

I'm pretty sure he meant that he wanted to ask someone in a foster home if they rather would have been aborted. As in, would you rather have been aborted before you were born and not have lived, or would you rather have not been aborted and still given a chance to live, albeit in foster car.

[HateTheFake]

adoption > abortion

Some families cant have kids, in most of the circumstances a family will pay the mother for her time and hospital bills if she signs over her legal rights after the birth.

Problem solved.