iamtrip Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Again the sorry assed organised religions can't keep their noises out. If people want to abort or euthenize, then who is the church to impose their moral ideas on the rest of us? Fair enough if they kept them to themselves, but to actually believe they should have some infulence over everyone s just going too far. Morals are a result of years of inbred indoctrination by religious bodies. I'm not saying that everything the church says is wrong. I'm just pointing out that not everything it says is right. The moral implications for killing a zygote or a collection of small cells should be considered no different than killing an ant or a bug. As most abortions are carried out in the first 12 weeks (3/4 within the first 3 weeks), I don't see the problem. The only arguement I see here is a legal one as to qwhether a zygote should qualify legally as a 'life' and therefore murder/manslaughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reelguy227 Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Iamtrip ,what do yu think of abortions after the 12 weeks? God Bless, Ricky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted September 21, 2004 Share Posted September 21, 2004 Not having a vagina or a womb, nor possessing the capability to carry an unborn child in my body, I have no opinion on abortion. I'm immediately disqualified. I do, however, know some of the statistical facts that surround the issue: 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing. 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby. 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.) 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health. 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health. 54% of women having an abortion said they used some form of contraception during the month they became pregnant. 90% of women who are at risk for unplanned pregnancies are using contraception 8% of women having an abortion say they have never used contraception. 88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy. 60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children. 47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one or more abortions. There are approximately 46 million abortions conducted eacy year, 20 million of them obtained illegally. In 1996, there were 1,365,700 abortions in the United States (AGI, 1999). The abortion issue is far too polarized for either side to expect anything but the status quo for years to come. What amazes me is that the same people who are up in arms about the inhumanity of aborting even a mere blastocyst with the mental capacity of a bacteria turn a complete blind eye to the inhumanities that they may actually be able to affect positive change with in their lifetimes. There is much that could happen if every anti-abortion activist would also pick up a pen and paper and write their congressional representatives, UN officials, and world leaders, asking that the atrocities being committed in more than five African and Asian nations come to a halt. In Sudan alone, an alarming number of abductions of young girls and boys is occuring. Children were sometimes taken directly from their parents, who were then killed if they protested. In an attack on Goz Naim in late January, for instance, a twenty-year old Zaghawa woman named Mecca Hissab was shot to death by janjaweed when she cried and tried to stop the militia from taking her three-year-old son. At a minimum the numbers of abducted children are likely in the hundreds, ranging in age from infants to adolescents. A young man from Jirai, a village some forty-five kilometers from Kepkabiya, saw the bodies of three young boys he knew; they had been shot by the militia during the attack on the village. The boys were aged ten, twelve, and thirteen. In Darfur, residents of the town stated that sixty-seven people were killed and forty-one schoolgirls and female teachers were raped by the militia. Some were raped by up to fourteen men and in front of their families. The same reports stated that some women had been branded on the hand following the rapes, apparently in an effort to permanently stigmatize them. Witnesses from dozens of villages report that the janjaweed deliberately assaulted and killed civilians, both those perceived as rebel supporters and others lacking any link to the rebel forces. They're killing men, women, and children... as well as women with unborn children and infants. Click this link and do something, and I'd be more interested in listening to your position on abortion. At that point, you would demonstrate that you really give a **** about humanity and the precious nature of life and your words would gain credibility. Until such time, anyone whose reproductive organs reside outside their bodies that speaks out against abortion is merely blindly following some superstition or cult and is without genuine compassion. Either that, or the fact that the genocides and mass-homicides occuring in Africa don't matter since they only affect a bunch of black people far, far away. Reference: The Alan Guttmacher Institute (1999). Sharing Responsibility: Women, Society and Abortion Worldwide, New York: AGI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted September 21, 2004 Share Posted September 21, 2004 Originally posted by reelguy227 Iamtrip ,what do yu think of abortions after the 12 weeks? The percentage of abortions prior to 12 weeks is 88% of 1,365,700. That makes 163,884 the number of abortions after 12 weeks. Even if it is assumed that none of these abortions are about the safety of the mother or due to serious problems with the pregnacy, this is still a low number compared to the number of deaths due to Heart Disease, which in 2001 was 700,142. Why are there no anti-fatty foods demonstrations in front of McDonalds and Church's Chicken? Why aren't anti-heart disease nut jobs throwing pipe bombs through the windows of ice cream shops and sniping French chefs? Heart Disease is four times the killer of abortion. For that matter, it's over 200 times the killer of domestic terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted September 21, 2004 Share Posted September 21, 2004 Not having a vagina or a womb, nor possessing the capability to carry an unborn child in my body, I have no opinion on abortion. I'm immediately disqualified. I came from a womb, via the other. I reckon that gives me sufficient experience to comment. Personally I think once the foetus has developed sufficient nervous activity to qualify it as a life-form, it's no longer merely the business of the mother as to whether she should terminate the pregnancy or not. A major medical research project should be undertaken every year using the latest technology, to accurately divine the average age at which an embryo responds to stimulus, erring on the side of the unborn child's welfare. Once the embryo advances forward and becomes a functional organism, it's a living creature. Living creatures should only be euthanised on medical grounds. It's axiomatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reelguy227 Posted September 21, 2004 Share Posted September 21, 2004 Originally posted by SkinWalker The percentage of abortions prior to 12 weeks is 88% of 1,365,700. That makes 163,884 the number of abortions after 12 weeks. Even if it is assumed that none of these abortions are about the safety of the mother or due to serious problems with the pregnacy, this is still a low number compared to the number of deaths due to Heart Disease, which in 2001 was 700,142. Why are there no anti-fatty foods demonstrations in front of McDonalds and Church's Chicken? Why aren't anti-heart disease nut jobs throwing pipe bombs through the windows of ice cream shops and sniping French chefs? Heart Disease is four times the killer of abortion. For that matter, it's over 200 times the killer of domestic terrorism. Why you ask ? Because people know the foods they eat are fattening and they can make the choice whether they are going to eat those foods that will give them heart disease and eventually kill them or not . They have a choice to their life ,babies do not when they are aborted ,thats why . What did they do to deserve to be killed as there life is just beginning ? You talk about kidnappings in Sudan ,kidnappings are one thing ,being killed before you even have a chance to live is another ,at least those kidnappees had a chance to live some part of their lives ,the aborted children dont . Thats why Im not on a brigade for heart disease people ,thats why Im on a brigade for the most innocent of people,the aborted ones who never were given a chance to live and murdered by their own parents ,thats why !!!!!!! God Bless, Reelguy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted September 21, 2004 Share Posted September 21, 2004 What did they do to deserve to be killed as there life is just beginning ? You talk about kidnappings in Sudan ,kidnappings are one thing ,being killed before you even have a chance to live is another ,at least those kidnappees had a chance to live some part of their lives ,the aborted children dont . Thats why Im not on a brigade for heart disease people ,thats why Im on a brigade for the most innocent of people,the aborted ones who never were given a chance to live and murdered by their own parents ,thats why !!!!!!! God Bless, Reelguy. Surely you must care about those young teens who decide not to have sex, right? Look at all those countless children, denied a right to exist solely because it would be a discomfort to thier parents. I only support abortion when the child is still thoughtless; no more than a mere spider or fish. Afterall, we openly kill fishes, cows, goats, and chickens, we infact make giant prisonhouses, where they have no purpose but to be slaughtered and end up in our belly. What's so different about a mass of cells with no form of thought or intellegence? Once they develop a conscious, then they become human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted September 21, 2004 Share Posted September 21, 2004 Originally posted by reelguy227 at least those kidnappees had a chance to live some part of their lives ,the aborted children dont . Thats why Im not on a brigade for heart disease people ,thats why Im on a brigade for the most innocent of people,the aborted ones who never were given a chance to live and murdered by their own parents ,thats why !!! Have you ever heard the saying a taste of honey's worse than none at all? Those people who are killed have already experienced life and they KNOW what they will be missing, and they have had the chance to love and have people love them, which is being taken away. An unborn fetus isn't even AWARE that it exists yet, so it has no way of knowing anything that might be or could have been. And just like Tyrion said, and as I have said multiple times, aborting an unwanted child has the same results as the parents not having sex, yet you don't seem to be anti-abstinence, and why not? Not having sex prevents my sperm from turning into the babies they are being produced to create, so isn't THAT being inhumane to those unborn children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Originally posted by reelguy227 Why you ask ? Because people know the foods they eat are fattening and they can make the choice whether they are going to eat those foods that will give them heart disease and eventually kill them or not . They have a choice to their life ,babies do not when they are aborted ,thats why . So are you implying that the toddlers who are fed Happy Meals™ from age 2 until 13 have the ability to choose? Do their now life-long eating habits and self-esteem translate to "justice served?" Originally posted by reelguy227 You talk about kidnappings in Sudan, kidnappings are one thing, being killed before you even have a chance to live is another One could very well argue that the thousands of infants and toddlers killed in mass-homicidal and genocidal acts this year amount to being "killed before you even have a chance to live." I think those children (poor, black, little to offer the Western world) have as much or more right to life as any unborn blastocyst or developing fetus. At least the 2 year old has survived the birthing process already. And since we're on the subject, would not life-long slavery and sexual torture and abuse be less humane than a quick, powerful suction that shreds and kills the fetus within a few short seconds? I'm not saying I'm pro or anti abortion, its an emotionally charged proceedure any way you cut it, but I'd rather have my life ended in a few short seconds and never know what I missed, than to have been taught a language and the value of a mother's love and have her raped and killed in front of me so I can be the sex-slave for as long as I have the will to live. Anti-abortionists are good at painting an ugly picture to evoke emotion for their cause. They apparently aren't very good hearing it. Fight a cause that you can affect... gain credibility... then tell me what you think about abortion. By the way, you didn't respond to my post about the 88% (I've even read 90%) of the abortions that are done prior to 12 weeks. Do you equate that unthinking formation of cells to any higher form of life than an appendix or gall bladder? Does the chicken you ate have more rights since it has an apparent consciousness? Can you prove that cows aren't higher life forms than H. sapiens and more intelligent, so intelligent that they remain benevolent to society even though they know they are a food source? Hindi culture holds these creatures to be sacred... perhaps they're on to something that Western religion has yet to evolve to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Ginn Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 And just like Tyrion said, and as I have said multiple times, aborting an unwanted child has the same results as the parents not having sex, But the means aren't the same, and in some views it's murder to abort the child. But it's the word "unwanted" that really pisses me off. You shouldn't put yourself in the postion of having a child if you don't want one. It's your responsibility to have safe sex, and accept the consequences if you're not safe. A child shoudn't have to feel the consequences of stupid people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 But safe sex doesn't always work, and there could still be a pregnancy resulting from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wassup Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Originally posted by Feanaro A child shoudn't have to feel the consequences of stupid people. Are you saying that the victims of rapists are "stupid" because they decided to not practice "safe sex"? (Oh, and while we are on the subject, there is no such thing as "safe sex".) What do you do when these victims are women who were not even allowed to make this "decision"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Ginn Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Are you saying that the victims of rapists are "stupid" because they decided to not practice "safe sex"? (Oh, and while we are on the subject, there is no such thing as "safe sex".) What do you do when these victims are women who were not even allowed to make this "decision"? Why don't you go and read the rest of this thread. And see what i have to say about that, before you shoot your mouth off. ANd i meant in a sense of consentual (sp?) sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Originally posted by Feanaro You shouldn't put yourself in the postion of having a child if you don't want one. It's your responsibility to have safe sex, and accept the consequences if you're not safe. Man has been roaming the planet for over 150,000 years. In all human cultures, promiscuity is probably one of the few common cultural characteristics, present in both taboo and norm. But even the taboos wouldn't exist if it wasn't human nature to do the nasty whenever the opportunity presents itself. I don't think your morals or the morals of any culture or religion will change the fact that people ****. Often. Unplanned pregnancy will happen. Unwanted babies will result. Abortions will happen whether legal or not. Better to have established processes and methods in place that can be monitored and supervised by authority than crack-house coathanger procedures. People will choose safety and thus submit themselves to the process, which can include education and counseling prior to the final decision. More lives can be saved if legal than if prohibited if one thought about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Ginn Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Abortions will happen whether legal or not. You know you're right. And it's kind of just like drugs, you know people are going to do it, even if it's illegal. So in a sense this argument is pointless and we are all wasting our time. Because abortion will happen no matter if it is illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Which is why I advocate spending your time doing something that will make a difference! I wasn't blowing smoke up everyone's collective butts when I wrote about the atrocities in Sudan, and other nations around the globe. More Rwandas will occur unless we pressure world leaders to act. There are already signs that this works: Kofi Annan recently made some harsh remarks about the situation in Darfur and is probably going to bring this to the UN Sec Council. I believe this is because of citizen activists. Go to the link I posted above (or on the previous page by now?) and see what you can do. Save some lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 i think a human fetus, if only a bunch of cells or not (after all we're all "only cells", or more precise "only atoms, electrons, protons etc..) actually is human and especially human life. in fact every single fetus is life, not to say every single cell is life. i could even go more into it and say (many) atoms are life and many could be (depending on the element), nearly every electron could be life, depending on which/what kind of atom it belongs to. every cell is made of atoms and so on. so the line where life really begins is not clear for me, since life can only exist because of certain "circumstances". -- however, within the first 3 months a pregnancy is not "very sure", within that time miscarriage is not an uncommon thing. the reasons for that vary from stress over smoking and unhealthy food to unknown (read: "natural selection"?). so, my question is, are those who are anti abortion in the common sense also against "abortion" in the uncommon sense? i mean i see pregnant women smoking, drinking, doing drugs, i see others smoking in front of pregnant women without even caring and so on. this is during pregnancy. then there are those who smoke and drink when they still give babies the breast, or smoke in front of their children without caring for their health. i see abortion as a relative small issue to what we what we do to the bunch of cells we "produce", thinking or not, unborn or not or whatever, and compared to skinwalkers point about humanity it is nearly nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamtrip Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Originally posted by SkinWalker The percentage of abortions prior to 12 weeks is 88% of 1,365,700. That makes 163,884 the number of abortions after 12 weeks. Even if it is assumed that none of these abortions are about the safety of the mother or due to serious problems with the pregnacy, this is still a low number compared to the number of deaths due to Heart Disease, which in 2001 was 700,142. Why are there no anti-fatty foods demonstrations in front of McDonalds and Church's Chicken? Why aren't anti-heart disease nut jobs throwing pipe bombs through the windows of ice cream shops and sniping French chefs? Heart Disease is four times the killer of abortion. For that matter, it's over 200 times the killer of domestic terrorism. Heart disease is a silent killer. Thus people don't recognise that fatty foods should be radically protested against. Plus you get some pleasure out of eating the food. Abortion isn't pleasurable and if it was to kill, its effects would be almost immediate. Added to that the religious nutjobs imposing their views on everyone else and similarly the 'pro life' idiots, the topic becomes a protestor's paradise. After 12 weeks, the dangers to the mother of an abortion spiral. Even so, if the mother wants to risk it, I think up to around week 20 is still acceptable. Week 16 sees the baby's shape fully formed, although obviously still growing. Personally, I believe week 20 is perhaps the landmark as certain albeit rare cases have seen premature babies born after week 20 survive. Pre-week 20, I believe the baby should not be considered 'alive' in a legal terms. I'm not saying that I woiuld personally find a termination at such a late stage a pleasant thing to do (personally, I couldn't imagine any reason to terminate after week 12...you've had 3 months to decide). So basically, I think anything before week 12, preferably in the zygote stages would be acceptable to me. Anything after week 12, I don't think should be terminated (although merely from an emotional level). In my opinion, anything after week 20 should be considered legally sentient /'alive' and shouldn't be allowed to be terminated (besides the obviouss increased dangers). That said, I think people should be free to abort at whatever stage. It is after all their choice, not mine, and noone elses. As long as they stay within the confines of the law and what the law determines to be 'leaglly alive' (providing the law looks at the situation perspectively, not religiously), they should have the free choice to abort whenever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wassup Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Originally posted by Feanaro Why don't you go and read the rest of this thread. And see what i have to say about that, before you shoot your mouth off. Frankly, I don't see you saying anything about the situations I brought up: Originally posted by Feanaro Now when rape comes into play, i have no idea what to do. I can understand how one would feel if they got pregnant because they were raped. And that they wouldn't want that child. So in that case i wouldn't know what one should do. But i would hope they would keep the child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reelguy227 Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Originally posted by SkinWalker So are you implying that the toddlers who are fed Happy Meals™ from age 2 until 13 have the ability to choose? Do their now life-long eating habits and self-esteem translate to "justice served?" No im not . The parents should know that what they are feeding to kids is bad for them ,shouldnt they ,you are all up on choice and stuff for abortion ,dont the parents have the choice to feed their kids happy meals ? Originally posted by SkinWalker One could very well argue that the thousands of infants and toddlers killed in mass-homicidal and genocidal acts this year amount to being "killed before you even have a chance to live." I think those children (poor, black, little to offer the Western world) have as much or more right to life as any unborn blastocyst or developing fetus. At least the 2 year old has survived the birthing process already. Ya they survived it because they werent killed while developing ,like abortion does. Originally posted by SkinWalker And since we're on the subject, would not life-long slavery and sexual torture and abuse be less humane than a quick, powerful suction that shreds and kills the fetus within a few short seconds? I'm not saying I'm pro or anti abortion, its an emotionally charged proceedure any way you cut it, but I'd rather have my life ended in a few short seconds and never know what I missed, than to have been taught a language and the value of a mother's love and have her raped and killed in front of me so I can be the sex-slave for as long as I have the will to live.[/b] Id rather live some of my life than be killed before its going to take place . And by saying the kidnapees thing youre saying that the aborted children were always going to turn out to be kidnapped ,you dont know that ,they could have grown up to a poor person or a billionare . Besides, if I was kidnapped I wouldnt care because Id try my hardest to unite my sufferings with the sufferings of the Cross of Christ . Originally posted by SkinWalker By the way, you didn't respond to my post about the 88% (I've even read 90%) of the abortions that are done prior to 12 weeks. Do you equate that unthinking formation of cells to any higher form of life than an appendix or gall bladder? Does the chicken you ate have more rights since it has an apparent consciousness? Can you prove that cows aren't higher life forms than H. sapiens and more intelligent, so intelligent that they remain benevolent to society even though they know they are a food source? Hindi culture holds these creatures to be sacred... perhaps they're on to something that Western religion has yet to evolve to. [/b] All I believe is that all human life is precious ,from conception until death, you cant equate humans with their organs or a cow or chicken . God Bless, Reelguy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 No im not . The parents should know that what they are feeding to kids is bad for them ,shouldnt they ,you are all up on choice and stuff for abortion ,dont the parents have the choice to feed their kids happy meals ? So then you would petition against both parents feeding thier kids happy meals and those that do abortions, right? Afterall, the child(or undeveloped fetus) has no choice in the matter either way. Id rather live some of my life than be killed before its going to take place . And by saying the kidnapees thing youre saying that the aborted children were always going to turn out to be kidnapped ,you dont know that ,they could have grown up to a poor person or a billionare . Besides, if I was kidnapped I wouldnt care because Id try my hardest to unite my sufferings with the sufferings of the Cross of Christ . Then why don't you go out and impregnate every woman you see? I mean, you would want your children to live a life afterall? All I believe is that all human life is precious ,from conception until death, you cant equate humans with their organs or a cow or chicken . Course, it's not too fair to force that belief onto others...and no, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you since I'm not forcing your future mate to have an abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Originally posted by reelguy227 What did they do to deserve to be killed as there life is just beginning ? but they have yet to even have life, thus they cannot be "murdered". Murder is the taking of a life, abortion is preventing life. kthx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 I have 2 points to say:POINT 1 ever notice how society gradualy steps to getting worse and worse? If were killing babies NOW it will be a matter of time before we start killing the elderly! eventually we,ll start killing anyone whos not perfect! dont beleive me? for example, in the 19th century, swimsuits had to cover women's whole bodies! an ankle would have been considered improper! throughout the century they gradualy got smaller to those little bitty bikinis and they are considered a standerd! were killing unborn babies and some criminals now, dont be surprised if later we start killing the handycapped, then the elderly and the list will go on... reelguy, i agree that abortion is murder wrather people say so or not! if we dont end abortion soon it will only get worse! do you agree? POINT 2 also remember this quote? Originally posted by Mort-Hog Whether it's a 'human' or not isn't important. It still makes more sense to abort it. It's in the interests of everyone involved. whoever does an abortion should think of the PRIMARY person involved! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Originally posted by kipperthefrog dont beleive me? for example, in the 19th century, swimsuits had to cover women's whole bodies! an ankle would have been considered improper! throughout the century they gradualy got smaller to those little bitty bikinis and they are considered a standerd! how is this an example for:ever notice how society gradualy steps to getting worse and worse? ??? If were killing babies NOW it will be a matter of time before we start killing the elderly! eventually we,ll start killing anyone whos not perfect! abortion has NOTHING to do with killing babies, and especially nothing to do with killing the "not perfect". and there is no such thing as "not perfect". also, only those who have a thought of "non perfect" others, will be able to start to kill "them". and did you ever thought about that eventually there will be the day where 'christians' start crusades and kill NON BELIEVERS.. oh.. wait a second.. that surely wont happen.. again. were killing unborn babies and some criminals now, dont be surprised if later we start killing the handycapped, then the elderly and the list will go on... do i read a "bye bye death penalty" here? .. whoever does an abortion should think of the PRIMARY person involved! the primary person involved is the woman. hmm.. see abortion is not like killing elderly or handycapped people, it is not like killing an unborn baby. an unborn baby is nearly fully developed, ready to go out and "kick some parents butt" .. (absolutely positive spoken ) abortion during the first couple of weeks of pregnancy is more like cutting flesh (read: taking living human cells away, blood cells, skin cells, muscle cells etc) out of your arm or whereever, with only one difference: if everything runs fine, only then there is the possibility that those cells you take develop to an organism which is able to live on it's own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- whoever does an abortion should think of the PRIMARY person involved! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the primary person involved is the woman. the primary person involed is the BABY! abortion has NOTHING to do with killing babies, and especially nothing to do with killing the "not perfect". Abortion IS killing babies! the only difference is its before they were BORN! originally posted by kipperthefrog ever notice how society gradualy steps to getting worse and worse? If were killing babies NOW it will be a matter of time before we start killing the elderly! eventually we,ll start killing anyone whos not perfect! dont beleive me? for example, in the 19th century, swimsuits had to cover women's whole bodies! an ankle would have been considered improper! throughout the century they gradualy got smaller to those little bitty bikinis and they are considered a standerd! maybie i wasnt clear here! we start out with strict rules, for example, -rule #1 no killing later we wanted to change the rules slightly, to fit our "society" -rule #1 no killing ...unless its a war later we leagalise he death penalty -rule#1 no killing ...unless ita a war ...unless he was a muderer later we change the rules a little more! -rule #1 no killing ...unless its a war ...unles he was a murderer ...unless your a police oficer trying to stop a criminal ...unless it was self defense i suppose sometimes killing is necesary! (althouh some people who get the death penalty are innocent but later on we decide to legalise a little unesesary killing -rule #1 no killing ...unless its a war ...unles he was a murderer ...unless your a police oficer trying to stop a criminal ...unless it was self defense ...unless its an unborn baby see? we start off with a little evil but eventualy we are FLOODING with evil! before we know it, we have the law like THIS: -rule #1 no killing ...unless its a war ...unles he was a murderer ...unless your a police oficer trying to stop a criminal ...unless it was self defense ...unless its a burglar broke in your house ...unless its an unborn baby ...unless its someone in the hospital about to die ANYWAY ...unless the person WANTS to die ...unless the person is too old and weak and unfit to live ...unless its hanicapped ...unless he was speeding ...unless its your niebor whos dog did his business on YOUR LAWN! we START OUT killing so called "little blobs of tussue and eventully we'll have senseless killing! NOW do you get the picture? the concept is, if we start killing uborn babies NOW, later on well find MORE kinds of people we want to kill and well do MORE killing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.