politics. there once was a man from Nantucket.... Abortions for all" 390905 Very T'"; no 3130000000! abortions for anyone'. iitt, Hamm, abortions for YAYAYAY! s
Click to expand


politics. there once was a man from Nantucket.... Abortions for all" 390905 Very T'"; no 3130000000! abortions for anyone'. iitt, Hamm, abortions for YAYAYAY! s

there once was a man from Nantucket...

Abortions for all" 390905
Very T'"; no 3130000000!
abortions for anyone'.
Hamm, abortions for YAYAYAY!
  • Recommend tagsx
Views: 49144
Favorited: 26
Submitted: 04/30/2014
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to carlsforcedhunger submit to reddit


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #134 to #5 - notstill (05/01/2014) [-]
I see this a lot but I'm still confused, is there any joke other than the killing children part?

Pls help I want to be one of the cool kids that can laugh at things
User avatar #136 to #134 - jjoorriissjjuuhh (05/01/2014) [-]
Anon does not want to give choices to women. Nothing good can come from that.
#137 to #136 - notstill (05/01/2014) [-]
I'm glad there was no deeper meaning and I'm just cynical asshole who doesn't find things funny
I'm glad there was no deeper meaning and I'm just cynical asshole who doesn't find things funny
#146 to #137 - John Cena (05/01/2014) [-]
Livin' on the edge
#37 to #5 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
Never ceases to make me giggle.
User avatar #20 to #5 - stardustdragonlord (05/01/2014) [-]
Not if they become mandatory
#27 to #20 - kanyesfishsticks (05/01/2014) [-]
that's a genius idea
User avatar #8 - mutzaki (05/01/2014) [-]
"Oh, what, so just because I had an abortion, I now can't get a miniature American flag?"
#10 to #8 - John Cena (05/01/2014) [-]
you had your chance
#14 - Indubidubly (05/01/2014) [-]
How to avoid tests in class:   
1. Bring up abortion
How to avoid tests in class:

1. Bring up abortion
#21 - shadowrated (05/01/2014) [-]
just do it yourself, they won't know
just do it yourself, they won't know
#12 - John Cena (05/01/2014) [-]
i love those tiny american flags. patriots buy them to show off their patriotism then i read the fine line to them: "Made in China"
User avatar #131 to #12 - theincrediblegoose (05/01/2014) [-]
Wow. You sound like a ******* dick.
User avatar #7 - capinsquiggles (04/30/2014) [-]
Should be legal for everyone to do, just cause it's legal doesn't mean you have to do it, who cares if you don't want to do it and it's legal, that just means don't do it.
User avatar #78 to #7 - douthit (05/01/2014) [-]
Yeah, but the kid doesn't get to choose. Their life is ended without any say in the matter.
User avatar #80 to #78 - capinsquiggles (05/01/2014) [-]
It's only legal to abort before a certain period of time. And during that period of time it is not a human life, it's a mass of cells that can develop into a human, but is not a separate living life alone.
User avatar #82 to #80 - douthit (05/01/2014) [-]
I disagree.
User avatar #83 to #82 - capinsquiggles (05/01/2014) [-]
You're entitled to your opinion. But I personally choose to accept all the science behind it.
User avatar #84 to #83 - douthit (05/01/2014) [-]
Saying it's not a life isn't science, but rather as much an opinion as mine.
User avatar #85 to #84 - capinsquiggles (05/01/2014) [-]
It not being it's own separate life is the conclusion science has reached. If you want to see the science behind it look it up, because I didn't feel like memorizing the reasons why. But if you want me to guess I believe you can only abort before the brain develops, and the brain is what makes us, us. But I could be completely wrong in my guess
#130 to #85 - cabbagemayhem (05/01/2014) [-]
I'm sorry, but that is wrong. Science does not make that claim, nor can it define what life is, or at what point it is distinct. Please, don't misuse the word science. If you wish to disagree, please post sources.
I'm sorry, but that is wrong. Science does not make that claim, nor can it define what life is, or at what point it is distinct. Please, don't misuse the word science. If you wish to disagree, please post sources.
User avatar #113 to #85 - douthit (05/01/2014) [-]
But just claiming that something is settled doesn't make it so. An unborn child may not be able to survive without its mother, but that's not how I would define life. This is the cause of the controversy. I don't know anyone who wants to limit anyone's right to do with their body as they wish, but the problem is the debate over whether or not it's only one person's body being affected.
User avatar #79 to #7 - oxymoronking (05/01/2014) [-]
well, but some people think that would be legalizing murder
User avatar #81 to #79 - capinsquiggles (05/01/2014) [-]
I point to my other comment in reply to yours.
User avatar #86 to #81 - oxymoronking (05/01/2014) [-]
but again, its debateable. right now, we really cant tell what would count as a "human". some thinks its conception, some think 3 1/2 months, some think birth. thats why it should by state by state. if texas doesn't want it, then the people who do want it can go to new mexico or something.
User avatar #87 to #86 - capinsquiggles (05/01/2014) [-]
Listen. The time point is debatable yes. But if it's legal, it doesn't hurt those who don't want to do it.

Why should a young teen who made a stupid mistake lose her entire life because she has to have a child as a teen just because other people don't want to have an abortion if they are in that situation?

Legalizing it gives an option, it's not forced upon those who don't want it. It doesn't hurt those who don't want it, so why hurt those who do?
User avatar #89 to #87 - oxymoronking (05/01/2014) [-]
because any other stupid mistakes a teenager makes dont get a easy way out. and again, if we made the murder of old legal just because we dont want to care for them, we'd have a huge amount of debates too. i know thats a bit extreme, but yeah.
User avatar #94 to #89 - capinsquiggles (05/01/2014) [-]
Teens get punished for stupid mistakes, usually. Teen gets super drunk, hangover. Teen ***** over a friend? Other friends destroy their social lives.

Someone kills another, developed human being with his own thoughts, that's murder, and punished.

A teen gets into the moment, or thinks they're ok (whether from stupidity or lack of learning), not using a condom and gets pregnant? Or the teen did everything responsibly and the condom broke? Or even an older woman who for some circumstances can't give birth to the soon to be fetus and then child because she will die in labour? Why should things like that be punished by having a child.

Having a child in the teenage years often ends that teenagers aspirations for life. University? Good luck doing that raising a child. A job? Good luck doing that as a teen with a baby. That lady that can't give birth or she dies? Gives birth and dies, the child is now motherless, rather than aborted before it even had a brain.

The option is good. What would you do if you had a cancer in your arm where you needed to get it amputated or your life will end and it's illegal to get it amputated because some people thought that everyone needed 4 limbs because the good graces of god made man whole?

It's an option. Not a forced thing.

To that whole "easy way out" thing btw. I had a friend who made a mistake, got pregnant, and got an abortion because it's legal here in Canada. She to this day lives with sadness at the act. She felt the same way about it as you, but she also knew that it would destroy her life and she didn't want that. She made a tough decision but it was no easy way out, the mental stress was tough.
User avatar #96 to #94 - oxymoronking (05/01/2014) [-]
1. i completely bealive that if the womans life is in danger or the baby has high mortality rate, then it should be okay
2. first, minor sex is illegal, if their excuse was that they were high/drunk, then that would be another crime
3. i understand that for some, like your friend, it can be a very hard coice. but for others, its nothing more than a ham goblin, when it will someday be a human
tl;dr of convo, if its safe for the woman to give birth, then its selfish to refuse them a life
User avatar #98 to #96 - capinsquiggles (05/01/2014) [-]
1) I'm glad we agree on something here
2) Depends what country and what state you live in. In my province in Canada the legal age of consent is 16, which in places like the States is a common age for teen pregnancy. Illegal or not the teen is pregnant, and shouldn't have to have their entire life destroyed because either A. A mistake, B. An accident, or C. Being caught up in the hormones of teenage years and something going wrong
3) Whether it's a hard choice for the person or not it shouldn't matter. The fact is, despite it SOMEDAY being a human, it's not a human during the time it will be aborted. It's no different than a tapeworm or something in your system surviving from nutrients in your body. (And I tell ya, you gonna want to get that tapeworm the **** outta you the second you know about it)
User avatar #119 to #98 - wthree (05/01/2014) [-]
2) So why should a child have their entire life destroyed because of someone else's mistake?

While this may not be a perfect analogy: If you get into the driver's seat of a car, you accept that you may be in an accident and someones life may become in danger (either pedestrian or otherwise), if you accidentally hit someone, you don't drive away from the scene and proclaim that it was a mistake so you can shove your head in the sand.

tl:dr If you don't want to get pregnant/get someone pregnant, then don't have sex. If you choose to have sex you have to accept that your actions may end up in creating life, and you have to deal with this if it happens.

3) By week 9 a baby has a beating heart, an active brain, and can move in response to it's environment. While different countries have different laws on when abortion can take place, it is usually at least after 12 weeks of development.
User avatar #149 to #98 - oxymoronking (05/01/2014) [-]
well, i do see your side, and it does have as large amount of reason as mine, or probably more. in the end, is mostly personal belifs. have a nice happy day
#2 - John Cena (04/30/2014) [-]
There's no one size fits all solution for something like abortions and it should be treated on a case-by-case basis, so I don't really see the joke here.
User avatar #32 to #2 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
That'd be such a cluster **** to implement on a case by case basis. It'd be better to make them available and legal, and have free, easily accessible birth control.
#101 to #32 - gerfox (05/01/2014) [-]
Treated case by case.. By a committee or something?

"You.. You definitely deserve an abortion"

"You on the other hand. **** you, you're having sixtuplets"
User avatar #105 to #101 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
Do you have any idea how long that would take? By the time the person was processed and a decision was made they would have had a baby.
#108 to #105 - gerfox (05/01/2014) [-]
I tried to make a joke

Abortion isn't even an issue where I'm from. You decide for yourself until a certain time into the pregnancy, and then you would have to have the baby unless there's an emergency. It's your own life, and your own choices. We also have free abortions and free birth control tho.
User avatar #110 to #108 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
I'm sorry, my bad.

That's how it is in all of America, and how it should stay. It's there if you want it, but there's no one forcing you to if you don't. We don't have free abortions of birth control though.
#117 to #110 - gerfox (05/01/2014) [-]
I see now I wasn't sarcastic enough when I wrote that comment ^^

It's about individual freedom. To make your own choices.
User avatar #76 to #32 - oxymoronking (05/01/2014) [-]
except, you know, some people belive its murder
User avatar #100 to #76 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
It's not.


the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.


"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development."
#103 to #100 - John Cena (05/01/2014) [-]
So Nazis never murdered anyone? I mean it was legal within their system.
User avatar #104 to #103 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
I'm sure you can make an argument without using Nazis. That's such low hanging fruit that it's a potato.
#107 to #104 - John Cena (05/01/2014) [-]
Okay, I guess it wasn't murder to kill the native americans, there was no law against it. I really don't get how using the Nazi's as an example is any lesser of an argument, if it's an accurate example it's an accurate example and in this instance it was.
User avatar #111 to #107 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
Or maybe making a comparison between abortion and physician assisted suicide.
User avatar #109 to #107 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
Genocide isn't equatable to abortion. You'd have a much stronger argument if you used capital punishment, or something that happens on a rare, case by case basis. Also, fetuses aren't legally people, while the Jews and Natives are, so that's another problem with your argument.
#115 to #109 - John Cena (05/01/2014) [-]
lesser beings*
#114 to #109 - John Cena (05/01/2014) [-]
Yes, yes it is, genocide is comparable to abortion because genocide is undoubtedly murder, in these cases it was legal murder, what you're saying that in your instance it's not murder because it was legal but in cases of genocide it was murder despite it being totally legal you can't have it both ways. And nope, Jews and Natives weren't considered people at all, they were considered less beings exactly like you're referring to fetuses.

I'm not against abortion, i'm just saying we shouldn't pussyfoot around what it is, it is a destruction of life, we only added that "not life yet" tag to make people who have abortions feel better and to try to appease people who weren't quite on board yet.
User avatar #116 to #114 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
Holy **** , there are so many things wrong with that that I really don't want to spend the time pointing them all out, especially for an anon.

It is life, they're just not people. Scientifically and legally.
#118 to #116 - John Cena (05/01/2014) [-]
Really because i'm pretty sure science defines single cell bacteria that lived 500,000 years ago as life but a clump of cells actively changing isn't? And again, the legality part makes no difference, a ******** of ****** up **** has been legal, doesn't mean it's correct.

There was literally nothing wrong with the above statement, you're using hypocrisy to appease your bias, if aborting a fetus isn't murder because it's legal then the genocide against the Jews and native americans wasn't murder. You can not have it both ways, pick one.
#123 to #2 - fuckyosixtyminutes (05/01/2014) [-]
"I am able to approach a subject rationally, but yet this makes me unable to understand jokes about the subject."

What a strange mental disability you have.
User avatar #132 to #2 - thebaseballexpert (05/01/2014) [-]
there should not be a case by case basis. it should be "you want one, get one. You don't want one, then don't get one"
#11 to #2 - John Cena (05/01/2014) [-]
i think they are poking at the fact that most politicians go one way or another on these topics ie guns, very rarely finding middle ground, but i could be wrong
User avatar #26 to #2 - penileburglar (05/01/2014) [-]
...That pretty much *was* the joke.
User avatar #1 - pfccross (04/30/2014) [-]
I feel like im situations like abortions, it is the parents business. The world is already over populated, and sometimes lives can be ruined simply because now two people who had good potential in life can no longer do anything at all because of all the many hardships of having a kid. I think perhaps there should be some way to restrict though. for example, condoms break and birth control isnt 100% effective. Id say if you are using some kind of birth control and it failed you, than you should have to be forced to have the child. If you were being a tard and having unsafe sex because "it feels better" or some **** , than take the consequence you ****** .
User avatar #33 to #1 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
Wait, I'm guessing you meant that you shouldn't be forced to have the child if you were using birth control?
User avatar #38 to #33 - pfccross (05/01/2014) [-]
ya. its like... you took the precautions, and the product failed you. You shouldnt be ****** over so badly because you got unlucky to be part of the 0.1%. but of course, the choice to keep it is there for you.
User avatar #40 to #38 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
Okay, that's what I thought. I agree, it's the most reasonable route. Either you have abortion legal and available for everyone, then you can choose not to have it if you decide not to, or you can make it illegal for everyone, have the abortion anyways, only they will be dangerous and likely to kill the mother as well.
User avatar #129 to #1 - cabbagemayhem (05/01/2014) [-]
The world is not overpopulated.
#9 to #1 - John Cena (05/01/2014) [-]
I would advise never using the whole "world is overly populated" ******** unless you also advocate actual population control, like contraceptives, promote child adoption and orphan support, and **** like that. Otherwise, it's goddamn pretentious.
Up till the last line though, all fine. But two idiots' mistakes should not be raising a child they may or may not want. If that isn't allowed, then orphanages need to be fixed and given assistance.
#112 - spanishninja (05/01/2014) [-]
dont mind me, on my way to the next content...
dont mind me, on my way to the next content...
#140 - metacobalion ONLINE (05/01/2014) [-]
User avatar #120 - theluppijackal ONLINE (05/01/2014) [-]
Rambles by Jackal: feel free to ignore this
Why I'm pro-life:
The fact of the matter is, we're killing life. We can debate semantics all day about 'the potential for life' or 'the fetus' or other such much matters, but we're still killing human life. Anyone who looked at a medical textbook or a sonagram knows life begins damn early, within weeks or even sooner. But and this is the part tumblrfags would ignore, I'm not against overturning Woe v. Rade or against abortion clinics. the fact is if we were to do such a thing it would endanger more lives than it would save. Woman would go to back alley doctors with coat hangers and we could end up hurting more than we save. As it stands I wish we could have less abortions than we have. I never want a woman or childs life endangered but in any other circumstance I believe in adoption and other such matters. At worst I consider it a necessary evil and at best I consider that the woman should still have a choice in the matter, even if she could have the child safely and the child is healthy.
User avatar #133 to #120 - capslockrage (05/01/2014) [-]
I'm pro choice because of the cases where the woman was raped or when birth control methods failed I don't think the woman should HAVE to go through with the pregnancy.

I still think that abortion is wrong, but I don't think it should be illegal.

Maybe women should have to go through an hour long course to fully understand what will happen to make sure they really know what they're doing before they're allowed to abort it
#121 to #120 - John Cena (05/01/2014) [-]
i wouldn't ignore u for any reason<3
#122 to #121 - theluppijackal ONLINE (05/01/2014) [-]
bby <3
User avatar #124 to #122 - sebthebrony (05/01/2014) [-]
User avatar #125 to #124 - theluppijackal ONLINE (05/01/2014) [-]
Don't worry. I love everyone on this website.*

*some exceptions apply.
User avatar #126 to #125 - sebthebrony (05/01/2014) [-]
luppi-kun :c
User avatar #127 to #126 - theluppijackal ONLINE (05/01/2014) [-]
you're one of the ones I love
User avatar #128 to #127 - sebthebrony (05/01/2014) [-]
how are you bb
User avatar #90 - cormy (05/01/2014) [-]
LIMERICK DETECTED IN DESCRIPTION! I need to get that book from my friend... He has a ton of them.
"There once was a man from Nantucket
Whose dick was so long he could suck it.
And he said with a grin
As he wiped off his chin,
If my ear were a cunt, I would **** it."
#25 - misledzach (05/01/2014) [-]
I think a compromise would be having abortion legal only if it is going to kill the mother or the pregnancy was caused by rape. If you dont want to get pregnant by your boyfriend, wear a condom. Im ready for the red thumbs now.
User avatar #141 to #25 - mrselfdestruct (05/01/2014) [-]
Peter: Abortion is murder and I'm against it.
Brian : But what if the woman was raped"
Peter: Then maybe she should have thought of that before she asked me for directions.
User avatar #36 to #25 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
That's not a compromise, that's what almost all pro-life people say. The compromise would be to have it legal, and then you don't have to get them if you don't want to. Wow, who would think you'd have choice in the free world?
#45 to #36 - misledzach (05/01/2014) [-]
Having it legal isn't a compromise. A compromise would be to have an abortion law that has parts from pro-lifers while also having parts from pro-choicers
User avatar #46 to #45 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
That's funny, because that's exactly what we have now. Legal abortions up until the third trimester, then they are banned except if they mother's life is in danger. You have parts from both sides in the current law.
#48 to #46 - misledzach (05/01/2014) [-]
The reason a lot of people dont agree with the current law is because how the baby has started to look like a person. I think a law that we could all agree in would be to ban abortion after the first trimester unless the pregnancy happened because of rape or if it threatens the mothers life.
User avatar #51 to #48 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
Look like a person =/= a person.

I can't agree to that. Oftentimes it is unclear if a woman is pregnant for as many as three months, and with how time consuming it is to get an abortion, many women would not be able to get the needed procedure in time. Unless it was for anybody who started the process in the first trimester, then I think it might be reasonable, but it makes little difference from first to second trimester; the fetus isn't viable and the child can't register pain until about 24 weeks, hence the third trimester cut off. There is little difference in function between a fetus in the first trimester and a fetus in the second trimester, so there is no good reason to change it, other than to satisfy religious zealots.
#59 to #51 - misledzach (05/01/2014) [-]
The first trimester lasts around 12 weeks, the average time between periods is 3-6 weeks. This is well enough time to have taken a pregnancy test after a missed period. Aside from religious people wanting abortion completely banned, the people that oppose (the current bill in place) it for non-religious reasons based off of how the baby looks. Not every argument against religion is based off of a book.
User avatar #63 to #59 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
Many women have infrequent or irregular periods, especially if they are using hormonal birth control, so they would not think to check since the infrequency is normal. What of these many women? Sucks to be them, right?

Basing your argument off of the baby's appearance has zero moral, legal, or scientific support for it.
#70 to #63 - misledzach (05/01/2014) [-]
Yes because not aborting a fetus that is starting to look like a baby has no moral standing point. That makes sense. When the baby is still a clump of stem cells, it can be very easy to convince people to allow to abort during this time with the exception of religious zealots because they dont listen to reason. However even by the end of the first trimester the baby resembles what looks like a fetus, but so do a lot of mammal fetuses early on in pregnancies. This is why the cut off should either be at the first trimester or, to allow more time for detection of pregnancy, part way through the 2nd trimester. I believe science should present in most things, however not involved in moral decisions.
User avatar #102 to #70 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
It doesn't. Explain to me how it does since you seem so convinced.

You're basing your entire argument on the fetuses looking less like alien peanuts. It was hasty to say that it is a baseless argument, but you're going to need a lot more to have a viable argument since you lack legal or scientific support for your decision. Science is important here, since the law isn't just about morals.
#23 - pootismang (05/01/2014) [-]
Side A) Abortion if you want.   
Side B) No abortions for anyone.   
There is no middle ground. It's just heavily religious/moralistic people who don't think any abortions should be allowed. Not many people are trying to say that everyone as to get an abortion. If the people want cake, let them have cake, even if the cake is dead fetuses. If they don't want dead fetus cake that's fine by me.
Side A) Abortion if you want.
Side B) No abortions for anyone.
There is no middle ground. It's just heavily religious/moralistic people who don't think any abortions should be allowed. Not many people are trying to say that everyone as to get an abortion. If the people want cake, let them have cake, even if the cake is dead fetuses. If they don't want dead fetus cake that's fine by me.
User avatar #24 to #23 - pootismang (05/01/2014) [-]
has to get an abortion*
#142 - onderdonk (05/01/2014) [-]
Simpsons will never be unfunny
#143 to #142 - maisymiss has deleted their comment [-]
#147 to #142 - John Cena (05/01/2014) [-]
#148 to #142 - John Cena (05/01/2014) [-]
Got me thinking of some of my favorite Simpsons jokes
#30 - puttman (05/01/2014) [-]
if abortions ok the the death penalty should be as well
#135 to #30 - John Cena (05/01/2014) [-]
The problem with capital punishment is often times we kill innocent people.
#150 to #135 - puttman (05/02/2014) [-]
User avatar #35 to #30 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
I'm downsie for both.
User avatar #22 - GabeAsher (05/01/2014) [-]
...who's dick was so long he could suck it
User avatar #74 - forbesydemon (05/01/2014) [-]
I support abortion as long as it's safe and done within the time limit from conception. I also fully understand why so many don't like it. But what I don't understand is those who oppose abortions, but support wars and the death penalty, as if a human life is worth less once they've had the opportunity to grow and connect with those around them. Not as applicable with the death sentence but certainly with war.
#99 to #74 - John Cena (05/01/2014) [-]
I say people have the right to an abortion if they feel like it, but I don't like it. I see it as robbing a child a chance at life even if they might not be considered alive yet, they likely will be at some point, but abortion takes that chance away from a child who hasn't even had the chance to even try and live. The only reason why I think it should be legal is because **** happens. Rape, accidents, life threatening to the mother, incest, and stuff like that shows how it can be reasonable. In the end I always feel sorry for the child that lost its chance because someone else says no to the baby or it is likely to be full of defects because of sibling relations, but I can't really say much against it if it's being done with reason. As for comparing it to war and the death penalty? I fail to see the connection. I don't care much for the death penalty, but those who end up in that spot usually got themselves there, and war is just a whole different breed of death.
User avatar #75 to #74 - majordraco (05/01/2014) [-]
Comparing Abortion to things like the death penalty and wars is a little vague.
Well if you really don't understand it think about this;
Children are considered innocent, pure and unblemished, they have done no wrong nor had a chance to do so. So they are given higher regard than say death row inmate who has have taken life to get there, and only has himself to blame for being put to death.
War is another animal entirely because of the "voluntary" nature of the military.
So in both your comparisons the person being killed was put there by their own choices, if you believe the unborn are people too, they do not get a say in their demise.
User avatar #77 to #75 - forbesydemon (05/01/2014) [-]
That's actually a damn good way of explaining it. With war though, the people who are being invaded have to be taken into account, civilian casualties, young men enticed into defending their homeland by propaganda etc. Children die in wars too, all over the globe unfortunately.
User avatar #88 to #77 - majordraco (05/01/2014) [-]
That is true and has to be balanced out with the "validity" of the war, end justify the means so to speak.

But I think too many military conflicts get sold on false pretenses or trumped up ones, to get the public for support, or get handled poorly, and end up lasting longer than needed. And when it comes down to it I think the same pro-lifers would not think casualties are okay or a good thing.
User avatar #91 to #88 - forbesydemon (05/01/2014) [-]
One thing I learned in history is that there's propaganda and embellishment on both sides when it comes to war, so I definitely agree with the second part. I hate to be "you support part, you support all" about it, but civilian casualties are inevitable and supporting war leads to that, so choosing which wars to get involved in is crucial. My first comment was more about people I know personally who are like this, and they believe military intervention is always the answer to any political strife in foreign countries. I live in New Zealand with a rather small but powerful army so their support of war seems all the more stupid when this is taken into account
User avatar #92 to #91 - majordraco (05/01/2014) [-]
It is a subject that can be taken too lightly, glad we could come to some kind of understanding. Doesn't happen too often on this website.
User avatar #93 to #92 - forbesydemon (05/01/2014) [-]
Yeah it was different to have someone else express their opinion without getting high and mighty about it or resorting to "lel ur a faget and ur opinions r dumb".
User avatar #97 to #93 - majordraco (05/01/2014) [-]
On another note I get frustrated at people who take a position because it is consistent with their platform, even if it's the right position. I see it on all sides, people not thinking critically about each issue and coming to a sound position.
User avatar #31 - timmywankenobi (05/01/2014) [-]
The problem is the majority of abortions are done by selfish women who just plain don't want to deal with the responsibility of parenthood never mind the fact that after 31/2 months (the most common time for abortions) it's a nearly fully formed human with a working brain that is sending out brain waves and most other organs are functional as well yet abortions are legal till 41/2 months and feminists want it extended to 6 months . The fact that we tell men not wanting to deal with responsibility is an excuse only woman can use to get off Scott-free is extremely sexist. Personally I don't think abortions should be allow unless it is a emergency situation or the woman has been raped etc and the abortion must be done before 3 months when the brain and heart are functional (because in my opinion if you kill someone of any age with a perfectly functioning body and brain it's murder.) I feel this is a fair compromise .
User avatar #41 to #31 - ninjaroo (05/01/2014) [-]
3 1/2 months is first brain waves, not even nearly a fully developed brain.
User avatar #42 to #41 - timmywankenobi (05/01/2014) [-]
I said functional as technically a human brain isn't fully developed till the age of 24.
User avatar #44 to #42 - ninjaroo (05/01/2014) [-]
It's not even brain shaped. It's missing nearly everything that makes a brain a brain, including the parts that deal with sensory input. We just know it's going to be a brain and that the cells are technically nerve cells.
User avatar #50 to #44 - timmywankenobi (05/01/2014) [-]
it is quite brain shaped I assure you ,though it is not adult size obviously.
User avatar #52 to #50 - ninjaroo (05/01/2014) [-]
You assure me based on what?
At most it's a ball shaped clump of nerve cells at 3 1/2 months. It's not a brain shaped clump of specialized brain cells.
User avatar #58 to #55 - ninjaroo (05/01/2014) [-]
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------|
It's about that long ^
Its head would be about:
That long^
It's brain, maybe:
^That long, at the longest point.
It's starting to have a face. That doesn't mean its brain does much yet.
User avatar #60 to #58 - timmywankenobi (05/01/2014) [-]
it sends out brain waves which means it is working and thinking and alive.
User avatar #61 to #60 - ninjaroo (05/01/2014) [-]
A brain wave is an electrical impulse in the brain. At that point, it's part of the forming process. Connections being built and tested. I'm telling you dude, this stage of the brain is doing things but it's not being a brain.
User avatar #66 to #61 - timmywankenobi (05/01/2014) [-]
well then let me ask what are your personal prerequisites to decide if someone is alive or human ?
User avatar #72 to #66 - ninjaroo (05/01/2014) [-]
Being alive is pretty simple, there's a biological definition for that. If it matters, they have to display movement, respiration, sensitivity to stimuli, growth, reproduction and regulation to be life as we know it.
Being a human is much harder, and to be technical about it I don't care whether or not you're human. It matters to me whether or not you're a person. I don't care about brain dead bodies, although I understand the difficulty for a family taking it off life support.
I suppose that once your brain has developed to the point where you are reacting to your environment on more than a reflexive level you're on your way to being a person.
Where that line is, is not up to me. It should be determined by professionals.
User avatar #73 to #72 - timmywankenobi (05/01/2014) [-]
I see well then it would seem we are at a impasse.
#34 to #31 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
>The problem is the majority of abortions are done by selfish women who just plain don't want to deal with the responsibility of parenthood

Wow, that's a hell of a claim! Undoubtedly you have some facts to back them up, right?

And no, it's not a fair compromise. I think abortions should be available for all when needed. So why is it fair for me to be subject to your opinion on the matter?
User avatar #39 to #34 - timmywankenobi (05/01/2014) [-]
"I think abortions should be available for all when needed" well then as a fair minded person who believes all women should be allowed to abandon parental responsibility. You must also believe the law should be changed so that men can also be allowed to abandon parental responsibility by being able to legally to walk away from pregnant woman before the child is born and not be forced to pay child support right ?, because you would be a filthy hypocrite if you didn't .
#43 to #39 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
So, do you have some proof that this is women abandoning parental responsibility, or that it's the only reason for them to get abortions? Since you're making the positive claim, it's up to you to prove it.

Yes, I think that to the fullest. We have the capabilities to choose to not be parents, and they should be available to be utilized, however, men can't get abortions, so they'd need the legal equivalent to relinquish parenthood if they wanted to abort the child but the mother did not. The current system is unfair and sexist, but getting rid of abortion isn't a solution, it'd just bring back all the problems we had back when it was illegal without fixing anything. Abortion would happen anyways, it would just be highly dangerous and lead to many sicknesses and deaths from back alley baby pokers. You might as well have it legal and available, but make birth control cheap (or free) and easily accessible along with sex ed from an early age so that uh-oh babies become far less common, and by extension make abortions far less common. I don't know who said it, but the quote, "I think abortions should be safe, accessible, and rare" sums up my feelings on the matter.
User avatar #49 to #43 - timmywankenobi (05/01/2014) [-]
how is killing your child not abandoning responsibility ? I never claimed to know each individuals motives as there are a million I was just stating that they sum up to one thing the unwillingness to be a parent , and being a parent is a responsibility ergo abandoning responsibility. I am not advocating the end of abortion I am just saying we should make sure women think hard about what they are doing instead of sugar coating it as we do now and pretending she is not ending the future existence of a person who might do great things. after all was it not the Great Mewtwo who once said"The circumstances of ones birth are irrelevant. It is what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are." And for females that also means deciding who you give the gift of life to and what you do with that power. I agree that we should make better birth control and make it easier to get free would be best and that would all but take care of the abortion problem too.
User avatar #53 to #49 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
Since you can't provide anything but anecdotal support, I am going to have to go with the reasonable route that your claim is at the very least unsupported.

I think most women think quite hard about the procedure, but I agree that there are probably some who don't consider the repercussions beforehand. So, what do you propose to make them consider the consequences of the procedure, beyond the long talks they have with the doctor in which they talk about the physical and emotional consequences that the procedure will bring?

I'm glad we're agreed on the last point. To make it clear, I don't like abortion, and I would probably never want a woman I got pregnant to have one, even if I was unprepared for the child, but that doesn't mean my view can or should be forced on others who feel differently. They should have access to a safe and clean procedure.
User avatar #56 to #53 - timmywankenobi (05/01/2014) [-]
"Since you can't provide anything but anecdotal support, I am going to have to go with the reasonable route that your claim is at the very least unsupported. "- to which claim are you referring pray tell ?
User avatar #62 to #56 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
"The problem is the majority of abortions are done by selfish women who just plain don't want to deal with the responsibility of parenthood "
User avatar #65 to #62 - timmywankenobi (05/01/2014) [-]
oh that claim well that's just an assumption I made as almost 70% of abortions are given to poor/lower class women. I simply deduced that they get abortions so frequently because either they are too stupid or lazy to use protection or they just don't want a child to deal with (possibly because they are dumb and poor) . either way it doesn't put poor women in a good light.
User avatar #68 to #65 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
Ah, so you just used one unfounded assumption to support another unfounded assumption. Well, I still won't take it seriously regardless unless you can prove otherwise.
User avatar #71 to #68 - timmywankenobi (05/01/2014) [-]
meh there's not much point as that particular claim it's almost entirely built on unprovable preposition and really as no bearing on anything meaningful.
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)