z
  • Home

Young Writers Society


Adoption Not Abortion!



User avatar
96 Reviews
Supporter


Gender: Female
Points: 4980
Reviews: 96
Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:51 am
noninjaes says...



Yes, Autism has many causes, but I do believe the point that is trying to get across is that people who don't want the child are more likely to be reckless with their bodies while pregnant; a lot of the reckless things (e.g. smoking, drinking alcohol, doing drugs) are connected to deformities and disabilities in babies and unfortunately, it's hard (not impossible but still very hard) to live a good, productive life with the mental capacity of a five year old or bodily organs missing.
Noni Naps Through Nano
NaPoWriMo 2016
Stories Not Otherwise My Own

AnnieJaePayne
The Three Ninjateers
Being awesome since Jan 2012.




User avatar
152 Reviews


Gender: Male
Points: 3965
Reviews: 152
Tue Apr 09, 2013 1:01 pm
View Likes
Rubric says...



Enema

I’m going to try and avoid the point by point rebuttals, as they tend to get procedural and disjointed.

A theme I’m getting from your points is that the pro-life position in the abortion debate is particularly “ghoulish” because it overrides a woman’s rights to self-determination in the interests of protecting the rights of the child. You’ve focussed a lot on the way in which this overriding of rights objectified women and turns them into breeders. The fact of the matter is that every law involves the juggling of rights, and the privileging of one over another. Indeed, every right involves a parallel duty in the respect of that right. The right to life is no different, even in a situation in which its existence has a substantial impact on the mother’s self-determination. Defenses of necessity and justification generally don’t apply to murder, which reflects the general importance we place on a right to life even when a serious infringement of personal sovereignty is in play. Self defence certainly remains a defence, but requires malice and the perception of an intention to seriously harm. I know I’ve jumped the gun here a little, with my talk of murder, but it seems to me that you’ve argued that even if we might otherwise consider abortion to be murder, we should consider it justified because of the necessity of maintaining the mother’s autonomy. My reference to the law of murder more generally has been an effort to show how that is fundamentally at odds with how we as a society view transgressions against life.

I’ve noticed you’ve jumped away from cognition as the point at which rights to life begin when I called you on it, and are now sitting at birth. Fair enough, but is a four month old child of a single mother really any less dependant on its parent than a fetus? Especially a fetus that has reached a stage where it would be viable outside the womb? The child could certainly not survive on its own, and its infringement on the mother’s self-determination is still a substantial factor. If we are to protect a woman’s right to self determination, so that patriarchy should not force women into a social role as a raiser of children, should we not enforce the mother’s rights to infanticide, no matter how “distasteful” we find it?

It seems to me that you’ve tiptoed a bit around this point, accepting that the enforcement of the mother’s rights might be “very distasteful indeed”, but is strictly necessary, only to disagree with yourself immediately afterward with talk of a first trimester window. For someone sold on the “rights begin at birth” position, you seem somewhat unclear.

You seem to also be dancing around the fact that you’ve been trolling the pro-life position pretty hard before I stepped in. You’ve used the language of “caricature” and characterising the “consequence” of the pro-lifers position as evil, rather than the view itself, but this seems pretty weaselly. You’re a smart guy, I trust you know how, why and that the ad hominem approach is generally reviled as a rhetorical device. Don’t be surprised when you’re called on it.
So you're going to kill a god. Sure. But what happens next?

Diary of a Deicide, Part One.


Got YWS?




User avatar
14 Reviews


Gender: Male
Points: 272
Reviews: 14
Thu Apr 11, 2013 9:57 pm
View Likes
ThePretentiousEnema says...



I will stand by my view that any legislation that would obligate women to grow a fetus within them for nine bloody months without the chance of turning back, just to ensure the preservation of the life of her unwanted child, is abominable. I won't stagger on that point as long as I possess the slightest hint of rationale.

I do not believe that the right to life can override the right to self-determination. Ever. That can never happen.

Further on, let me explain my position of abortion regulation like this; I am completely happy with the way the abortion law is written today, with about a 3 month timespan for the mother to decide, and I do think that most women have the opportunity to look themselves up and decide within that time period -- it seems to work fine. However, I do believe, on a completely personal level, that the civil rights of a baby begins after birth, and not at conception, or that the mother is prone to become a mere vessel during the pregnancy, to involuntarily nurture the child.

Then again, a woman that would wait until the very last minute before she chose to abort, just for the sake of it, yes, that would be pretty distasteful indeed. But I can't imagine that would ever happen. I trust women to make the choice early on, and I do trust them to make the best decision possible in regards to their life situation -- which is not always the choice to have the child.

"Trolled" the Pro-Lifers? Jebus Christ, don't throw that internet bullcrap my way, it makes me nauseous. To say that it is irrelevant to pinpoint the consequences of the Pro-Life position, and highlight them through comedy, or not, is naive. Very, very naive, and dishonest. If anything, I don't care about the pathology behind their rationale, I really don't, it is how their ideology and philosophy would affect our society, if legislated, that is relevant. And what it would do to our society, and the women of our society, is pure evil. Nothing more, nothing less -- it is completely separated from functionality, or rationality.

To sacrifice the situation, psychology and emotionality of the mother just to grant this world yet another child, regardless of said child's upbringing -- who would gain from that? Who would possibly gain ANYTHING from that? Sure, the child would see the daylight, but what would that be worth if the child is not conceived out of love, care, and desire? Do these "Pro-Lifers" really have such a dogmatic and cold view of what a human life is? And under what circumstances it ought to be graced?
"Cold silence has a tendency to atrophy any sense of compassion between supposed brothers; between supposed lovers." - Maynard James Keenan




User avatar
23 Reviews


Gender: None specified
Points: 906
Reviews: 23
Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:00 pm
CowLogic says...



Mr. Enema: To sacrifice the situation, psychology and emotionality of the mother just to grant this world yet another child, regardless of said child's upbringing -- who would gain from that? Who would possibly gain ANYTHING from that? Sure, the child would see the daylight, but what would that be worth if the child is not conceived out of love, care, and desire? Do these "Pro-Lifers" really have such a dogmatic and cold view of what a human life is? And under what circumstances it ought to be graced?


Mr. Enema, I would like to answer your questions and/or address concerns.

I believe that by your first question, you are calling into play subjective abortion. It seems that you are implying an entire new level of beaurocracy that determines whether or not a woman can have an abortion or not, based on her "situation, psychology and emotionality." It will then be up to these people to judge whether or not she can get doctors to break little chunks of baby apart in her belly. Because, you must understand that not every case of a wanted abortion is based from a horrible condition. Therefore, as you say, if we want to play it to the SITUATION, you are really not giving the woman a "choice" as to whether or not they want an abortion, but rather the choice for whether or not they can appeal for one and whether or not she can make her own situation look bad enough in order to get one. So who could gain from an objective look at a situation. Well, the fetus, for one, but of course, you already seem to believe that that is insignificant in itself. The mother would benefit from it, however, in the case that pro-choice legislation passes.

Ah, yes, what is it worth if the child is not concieved out of love and desire. You know, I recall a nature program I once watched where either a crocodile or an aligator (can't bother to remember which as this was years ago) would concieve a child, and that child would have to hide from their father, because they would be eaten if he saw them. That's not a very loving situation, but they get over it, they grow up tough and strong.

Now, of course I am not so pretentious to say that this is an accurate reflection on how humans treat children and how people deal with emotional and psychological problems. However, the concept is still there. It is NATURAL to have kids. Part of nature, part of the ever-present Goliath of Evolution. Animals survive to produce offspring. I concede, human's are infinitely more complex in lifestyle and mind than any ofther member of the animal kingdom, but we still need kids. Our human race needs life anew.

Last I checked, there are many people with problems, there are many abusive, neglectful and all around dysfunctional families. But what I also notice, is a lot of them have kids. And while this kind of life does turn out poverty, conflict, and other nasty things, it is a part of a human life.

Let's not decieve ourselves with visions of some kind of perfect utopian lifestyle. Humans always encounter adversity. If they have the ability, they have the right- no, the DUTY to transcend their status and overcome this adversity. Although I have the utmost sympathy for those born into bad conditions, without love, care, and desire, they need to power through it. To deny them life, to deny them love, to deny them the right, the duty to transcend their conditions, to acheieve a higher state of being than they are born in? That is what I believe is abominable. There is a potential for human life in every pregnancy, no matter how bleak the vision of it is, and we need to grant that potential and feed it with the great quality of extra-womb air. Whatever doesn't kill you just makes you stronger. Abortion, by that logic, doesn't make anyone stronger...

If the view that human life is right, that humans should be ALIVE in the first place, that EVERYONE should have a chance to not only redeem themselves, but experience themself in the first place, that nature should take its course, that the universe should maintain its balance of life through the intercourse drives of those who inhabit it, that you should have a right to be able to live a good life, regardless of the one you must overcome to attain it, if that view is so "cold and bleak"- Then I want to be cold and bleak.

As for your last point. I think that it should be graced to all, and all a good night, sir. That means regardless of the situation, regardless of how many drinks X drank or how little money Y has. I think, that human life should be graced to all people who have the ability to live it, and if they do not, then let them die of it naturally, rather than pulling the plug, flipping the switch on a wrongly convicted man, injecting the helpless paitent of the hospital.

To deny all the right to breath fresh air, feel the grass (or concrete) beneath their bare feet, and to make a life for themselves- who would gain from that?

Thank you for your time, and I hope you can see where I am coming from.
The course skin of a thousand elephants sewn together to make one leather wallet.




User avatar
14 Reviews


Gender: Male
Points: 272
Reviews: 14
Fri Apr 12, 2013 12:06 am
ThePretentiousEnema says...



Pff, honestly Cowlogic, what you're saying is that women who seek abortions are only out to make their "situations look bad enough" for an abortion to occur, and that she should throw herself aside, inclining that she should just endure whatever lies ahead of her through this pregnancy based on the fact that this new life growing inside of her is more important than whatever it is that she has going on in her life that could potentially interfere with this motherhood.

By saying so, I'm afraid, you represent an ideal that I wish for this world to just flush right down the freaking toilet.

You are a naive little child, and will never know what kind of emotional distress it would be to carry a child that you know you won't be able to care for, much less will I, myself. The only one who could possibly determine when it is right for a new generation to plunge through her vulva is the mother in question, no one else, period. To even question that level of integrity is nothing more but an insult to women across the globe.

Once you are willing to legislate an obligation for incest victims or rape victims to breed these mementoes of complete disgrace, oppression and subjection, I will tell you that you are a threat to mankind.

Life is not a dogma, life is not something that is or should be inescapable. If my mother would not have wanted me, or if she deemed her pregnancy too early (note that she was 16), I would have never, ever, have blamed her, now in hindsight, because back then it wasn't about me, or the value of my life, it was about hers, and her desires and strengths.

A woman should never have to be legally forced to sideline her career, or life for nine moths just to fulfill some idiotic principle that pregnancies are a one-way ticket to a life that must be lived.

You speak of natural causes, well what is the difference between nature taking its grim course and a mother contemplating her situation, and deeming the situation through what is actually going on? Is the tragedy worse because there was an idea behind it? Is it worse because the mother didn't want to carry an unwanted child?

Those who would plague a woman with an obligatory pregnancy are evil, vile and inconsequential monsters. You are beyond my ability of expression, you are among the lowest pits of disgrace.

Those who wish to override the integrity of a breathing, functional human being with ties, ambitions and opportunities, which may all be shattered at the hands of these umbilical control freaks, make me ashamed of being a homo sapiens.

Since the fetus doesn't have any sort of concept regarding life, death, act or consequence, the mother in question HAS to be in full control of the situation, and wether or not the child will be born. What else do you propose?

That when a woman is pregnant she's screwed?
"Sorry, dear, you're not getting out of this. Looks like you're not going to get that promotion you've been striving for the last 10 years, looks like you're going to HAVE to go through all the physical and emotional hardships of a pregnancy, not because you want to, but because what's growing inside of you is life, and therefore automatically more important than any factor in your life as of now. Sorry, but right now, you only exist to breed another life form, because that is what you are made to do. Get used to it."

If this is a mindset you think of as acceptable, then I can't identify with you. I can't. To me, you are terrible human being. I hope you will never impose this sick kind of bullying upon the woman you might get pregnant in the future. In fact, how dare you try and inflict these types of irrationalities upon a situation you will never have to experience yourself?

I don't know what this makes me, but as a man you are prone to just simply accept what the woman ends up doing, and you are bound to being okay with that. You may state your opinion, and the woman in question should treat that opinion with concern, but as a man, again, you should always be behind her. No matter what. If you can't succeed in that task, then you are, truly, evil ******* scum.
"Cold silence has a tendency to atrophy any sense of compassion between supposed brothers; between supposed lovers." - Maynard James Keenan




User avatar
96 Reviews
Supporter


Gender: Female
Points: 4980
Reviews: 96
Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:44 am
View Likes
noninjaes says...



Cowlogic, if you only believe in nature taking its course, then how about you look at infantcide (killing of already born babies, not just a bunch of cells) in the wild animal kingdom (because really, what is more natural than that?).
Now, I know many don't trust wikipedia as a credible source, but the citations on it like to credible sources, but Infantcide (Zoology). If the animal kingdom shows that infantcide is natural, then following your reasoning, we should be allowed to do it.

(To everyone, I know these discussions get very passionate, but I don't think anyone appreciates personal insults. Attack the opposing points, not the opposition.)
Noni Naps Through Nano
NaPoWriMo 2016
Stories Not Otherwise My Own

AnnieJaePayne
The Three Ninjateers
Being awesome since Jan 2012.




User avatar
900 Reviews
Supporter


Gender: Female
Points: 1330
Reviews: 900
Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:53 pm
View Likes
PenguinAttack says...



Guys if you can't keep the rhetoric down and debate the issue and not bring up personal attacks, I will lock this thread.

Personal attacks are never okay in debate, ever.

I understand that topics become impassioned and everyone wants to make their point clear, but you have to keep it polite, if not friendly.
I like you as an enemy, but I love you as a friend.




User avatar
23 Reviews


Gender: None specified
Points: 906
Reviews: 23
Fri Apr 12, 2013 9:53 pm
View Likes
CowLogic says...



NoNinjasPresent
Cowlogic, if you only believe in nature taking its course, then how about you look at infantcide (killing of already born babies, not just a bunch of cells) in the wild animal kingdom (because really, what is more natural than that?).
Now, I know many don't trust wikipedia as a credible source, but the citations on it like to credible sources, but Infantcide (Zoology). If the animal kingdom shows that infantcide is natural, then following your reasoning, we should be allowed to do it.

Correct me if I am wrong, and I may well be, but I did address this, using crocodiles as an example in my post. I also think that as modern humans, infanticide is really not ingrained in our DNA. Humans make nurturing parents and it doesn't seem natural to me that we would OFTEN make the choice of infanticide, therefore deeming it generally unnatural.

Mr. Enema
Pff, honestly Cowlogic, what you're saying is that women who seek abortions are only out to make their "situations look bad enough" for an abortion to occur,

No, my good man, that is exactly the opposite of what I am saying. What I am saying is that if subjective legislation of whether or not a woman can have an abortion or not, dependent on her situation, then she will be FORCED to try to make her situation look as bad as possible. Context clues, sir... they are very valuable.

and that she should throw herself aside, inclining that she should just endure whatever lies ahead of her through this pregnancy based on the fact that this new life growing inside of her is more important than whatever it is that she has going on in her life that could potentially interfere with this motherhood.

Listen, sir. I have already made it a point to explain how I think human life is extremely valuable. I don't know if I made it clear that I would, if given an ample opportunity, subject myself to torture, humiliation and death for the benefit of another human being. I am a human being, and I experience suffering. Sometimes my situation is not fun at all, and I have to deal with it. I may not know what it is like to give birth to a baby, and I never will. However, I am not stupid and unable to consider what I would do in other situations. If I was a woman, my viewpoint on this would not change. I know that it's one thing to say this than actually be in a situation where I would be pressed to do it, but I am a functional, sentiment human being, and it is not far fetched, at least to me, that I have the ability to make sacrifices, to endure pain, death, the hate of all those around me. The real question is, since you have not had the experiences you call into play, isn't that saying that in the woman's place, you would not practice self-sacrifice? Or maybe you would, but you don't want others to? You probably disagree with me on this, but I think humans are stronger than you let on. I believe we can take negative situations and turn them into positive situations.

I don't claim to know the pain of an unwanted pregnancy, but I can safely say that with my current understanding of morals, I would be more than willing to go through it if it means giving someone else a chance to live.

Now to address the rest of your argument:
You are a naive little child,
you are a threat to mankind.
some idiotic principle that pregnancies are a one-way ticket to a life that must be lived.
Those who would plague a woman with an obligatory pregnancy are evil, vile and inconsequential monsters. You are beyond my ability of expression, you are among the lowest pits of disgrace.
Those who wish to override the integrity of a breathing, functional human being with ties, ambitions and opportunities, which may all be shattered at the hands of these umbilical control freaks, make me ashamed of being a homo sapiens.
To me, you are terrible human being. I hope you will never impose this sick kind of bullying
If you can't succeed in that task, then you are, truly, evil ******* scum.

I appreciate your varied insults to add a little livelihood to your abuse. I also am very much thankful for when you informed me of my "bullying" ways by calling me a naive little child and evil and disgraceful, and I can go on and on.

Really, sir? You don't even know me. You don't know where I came from or where I am going to. You don't know what is going through my mind or how hard I have considered this topic, pushing aside my argument as "natural inclinations" of man and "dogma." In fact, it seems that most of your argument here is that since I am ignorant, Abortion should be completely legal. (And let me put it on the record that not once did I say it shouldn't be.)

Let me say that by insulting me and judgeing me because of my view that all humans should be given three unalienable rights of LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness you have not reached me. You have not changed my mind one bit with your argument that lacked some necessary substance, yet still made a point to deride me again and again.

It is now behind me. I am not mad at you. I do not hate you. I do not beleive you are naive or evil, even though I disagree with you. I am willing to offer a hand of peace to tell you, "Hey, look at me. I am a living breathing human being. Just because my beliefs on what humans should sacrifice for one another and the empathy they should feel towards each other disagrees with your own, I wish you to not think me evil." And I hope that you take that hand, even if you continue your stream of insults here to put on show for everyone else who you somehow feel the need to impress with your extreme tolerance towards women and zero tolerance for those who believe that, as human beings, women also can overcome hardship. I hope that no matter what kind of thoughts stream into your head and no matter what keys tick tack away on your keyboard, you remember that I am human, that I am not evil. Because, honestly, if you do not, then, and although there is no way to prove this, you are the one being naive.

Respectfully, CowLogic
The course skin of a thousand elephants sewn together to make one leather wallet.




User avatar
14 Reviews


Gender: Male
Points: 272
Reviews: 14
Sat Apr 13, 2013 1:02 pm
ThePretentiousEnema says...



I do sincerely apologize, Cowlogic, as mentioned above, I tend to become very "passionate" in these types of debates. Before I further explain my remarks, I would just like to tell you that I do not hate you either, and that, though my compiled points above may seem to tell a different story, I do respect you as a person, just not your beliefs regarding this issue.

Again, my apologies.

Now, to say that a human "should" sacrifice something is not the same as to radically enforce through law that they, in any given scenario, would have to. To me, that's kind of like legislating civil courage; that one would have to take a bullet for someone else. Of course, doing so may be heroic, admirable and strong, but it is not something that we should expect out of any person, much less obligate through law.

I do not believe that people are evil, though I do believe that actions, ideals and what one considers to be a virtue, can be. And I do, I really do, think that valuing human life to the extent that you would vote for women's obligation to carry a child, would be an evil legislation, and is a disgraceful ideal. And those people who do embrace those values as their own, and use those values to build their character, somedays I do feel like I resent them.

But that's my issue, and I'll deal with that.

In the end, I think that giving women the opportunity to choose, either according to your ideal, or not, is a necessity, and a social gift that I therefore think has to remain intact. People should not live in fear of pregnancies. There should always be a choice involved, at least in my eyes.

And I have a hard time understanding people who envision a better society through a Pro-Life perspective.
"Cold silence has a tendency to atrophy any sense of compassion between supposed brothers; between supposed lovers." - Maynard James Keenan




User avatar



Gender: Male
Points: 300
Reviews: 0
Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:51 pm
Stratus says...



Found this, I think it's relevant.

http://madlymegan.tumblr.com/post/47629545803/shananiganns-kristenmastora7

Spoiler! :
gallium-knight:

Here’s a test:

I’m holding a baby in one hand and a petri dish holding a fetus in the other.

I’m going to drop one. You chose which.

If you really truly believe a fetus is the same thing as a baby, it should be impossible for you to decide. You should have to flip a coin, that’s how impossible the decision should be.

Shot in the dark, you saved the baby.

Because you’re aware there’s a difference.

Now admit it


Opinions?




User avatar
30 Reviews


Gender: None specified
Points: 503
Reviews: 30
Sun Apr 14, 2013 12:00 am
Justlittleoleme says...



I'm just one of those people who wonders why there has to be a law about this in the first place. When lives are on the line I think people need to have the freedom to do what their personal convictions lead them to do. Of course we cannot for a moment say that a fetus is not a life just for the sake of creating a law that allows the extinguishing of that life.

I'm sorry, no matter how you cut it, a fetus is a life. It's just not one that most of us are readily able to emphasize with. How many of us know what it is like to be a tiny squishy unconscious life at the mercy of the decisions of bigger consciousnesses. Well we were all there once and now we are here, writing about what to do with ourselves at our very beginnings.

Something I just thought of: if humans were a rare species going extinct, and we had one pregnant female with a viable embryo in her, that life would be treated with the utmost respect and carefulness. If we had...say, a dinosaur egg, and it had a viable embryo in it you BET people would treat that with the same Awe and hope that a baby dino out of the shell would be treated with. When a mother finds out at day 1 that she is pregnant that embryo is already alive to her, a source of hope and dreams, or dread and misery.

So you see, I don't believe We can for the sake of an argument deny the living pulsing life that is a fertilized egg. But sometimes decisions have to be made that destroy one life for the sake of the other. People need to own up to that. If you are for abortion, you are for the extinguishing of one life for another. Plain and simple. Right or wrong, it is a decision that we should make completely and fully aware of what we are doing. I'm always for more life, and I despise the thought of abortion just because "you weren't ready" but I don't feel as though I have a right to keep someone else from making their own decisions. Of course that is just an opinion, maybe a wrong opinion, maybe a right opinion, but my opinion all the same.

But like I said, I'm more for less laws and more flexibility to make the right decisions. No, people are not always going to make the right decisions, and it is a terrible sad thing when they don't but when we create laws that put the sting on free will I think we are making a mistake. Of course, if your argument for abortion is based on whether or not a fetus is a real life then you might be deceiving yourself...Can we for once face this argument for what it truly and undeniably is, whether or not it is right to destroy one life for the life of another?

That is all.




User avatar
23 Reviews


Gender: None specified
Points: 906
Reviews: 23
Sun Apr 14, 2013 12:18 am
CowLogic says...



Mr. Enema
I do sincerely apologize, Cowlogic, as mentioned above, I tend to become very "passionate" in these types of debates. Before I further explain my remarks, I would just like to tell you that I do not hate you either, and that, though my compiled points above may seem to tell a different story, I do respect you as a person, just not your beliefs regarding this issue.

Thank you for your apology, sir. I can understand how you can become passionate about things and say things you may not normally say. Don't worry about it.

Now, to say that a human "should" sacrifice something is not the same as to radically enforce through law that they, in any given scenario, would have to. To me, that's kind of like legislating civil courage; that one would have to take a bullet for someone else. Of course, doing so may be heroic, admirable and strong, but it is not something that we should expect out of any person, much less obligate through law.

I can agree with this.

do not believe that people are evil, though I do believe that actions, ideals and what one considers to be a virtue, can be. And I do, I really do, think that valuing human life to the extent that you would vote for women's obligation to carry a child, would be an evil legislation, and is a disgraceful ideal. And those people who do embrace those values as their own, and use those values to build their character, somedays I do feel like I resent them.

Also understandable.

In the end, I think that giving women the opportunity to choose, either according to your ideal, or not, is a necessity, and a social gift that I therefore think has to remain intact. People should not live in fear of pregnancies. There should always be a choice involved, at least in my eyes.

This is where we must disagree. I think that when making an active decision to have an abortion is not the same as passively watching as an opportunity to sacrfice onself for another. I just believe that it is morally wrong to abort children, but I am very torn between whether I think there should be legislation forbidding it or not. On the one hand, like you said earlier, there really shouldn't be laws that control what you sacrifice for others, but at the same time, I really do see abortion as quasi-murder, since you are actively making the decision to end the life of the fetus.

However, my whole outlook on it, while I believe it is correct, is extremely hard to express or argue for, and I do not think I'll get the debate anywhere by babbling all over the place, so I think I will make my exit.

PS: I forgot to mention this is my last post, but,
I hope you will never impose this sick kind of bullying upon the woman you might get pregnant in the future.

I would never perform unprotected intercourse with a female unless I was certain that she would not have an abortion if she became pregnant, anyway, because of my beliefs on the matter.
The course skin of a thousand elephants sewn together to make one leather wallet.




User avatar
34 Reviews


Gender: Male
Points: 1380
Reviews: 34
Thu Apr 18, 2013 9:42 pm
sockmonkey says...



To quote george carlin
George carlin "when John Cardinal O'Connor of New York and some of these other Cardinals and Bishops have experienced their first pregnancies and their first labor pains and they've raised a couple of children on minimum wage, then I'll be glad to hear what they have to say about abortion".:
its built on lies...just like the mafia the cia and fox news...sockmonkey...away!




User avatar
23 Reviews


Gender: None specified
Points: 906
Reviews: 23
Thu Apr 18, 2013 10:09 pm
CowLogic says...



To quote myself:
When George Carlin gave birth and was able to watch as a child was born from within him, then struggled to create a better life for that child, and loved it dearly as it came from himself, caring for it and realizing that it was meant to have a life, when he stops judgeing others without having his own experiences, I'll be glad to hear what he has to say about abortion.
The course skin of a thousand elephants sewn together to make one leather wallet.




User avatar
8 Reviews


Gender: Female
Points: 722
Reviews: 8
Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:05 am
beastly361 says...



I argee, imagane a child. He`s not even born yet and you decide to MURDER the poor thing. He does not have a voice for himself to speak to you. But he could he would tell you that he would be happy where ever you place him, as long as he is alive and breathing. Wouldn`t it be the best feeling in the world to know that your child is safe with another family. Maybe later, when he is older, you can tell your child that you could raise him so you had to put him with a family that could care and love for him. Picture trying to explain that to that same child when you die and see him again. Though he still may be a little child that cannot possibly understand a single word coming out of your mouth. Just don`t dp abortion! Your mother had a choice, and you are reading this that means that your mother decied to keep you. Pass on that favor to your child. IT IS A CHILD, NOT A CHOICE!!!!
Only good for the latest trend. Besides, I have such good fashion sense.







"Yesterday you said tomorrow, so JUST DO IT."
— Shia Labeouf