[AlexanderPalamayr]

This is terrible yet creative.

Why is it "terrible?" Did you just want to show your drama-queen side?

[Ingeborga]

Well what do you propose mr.libertarian? You okay with some states keeping it legal and some states not? That's not really a position.

Or you believe in freemarkets... why not just wait for the magic of the invisible hand to make abortion obselete? (Oh wait... birth control and condoms should've done that already but they didn't) Infact, maybe you'll get lucky, and Jesus will descend from heaven, and he'll be wearing invisible hand gloves. Then you can have both your pagan gods save you from the mean old abortions that you won't do shit about.

I'm not an anarchist if thats what you want to know...

You're a pretty clinical person, do you know that?

You only care about what YOU care about and are incapable of being fair with anyone else...

Abortion isn't FAIR to the kid in the blender now is it?.......

That "fetus" is a LIFE to me and that "fetus" has every right to live like I do...

[15Praxanant]

Yes, I'm one of those "right-wing nuts" that believe killing innocent kids is wrong.....

[Immampdah]

[QUOTE=Jim Profit;29845]
Atleast you're honest. My problem with abortion is we don't even trust the general public with whiping (what is "whiping?") their own ass (sp). There's (grmr.) drinking regulations, smoking penalties, drug bans... speed limits, gambling liscences (sp), gun control, and noone(not a word) can legally kill another human being (not even soldiers or executioners? wow!).

Yet for some reason, any slut with a few hundred to spare, even a minor, can waltz into an abortion clinic and comeout unpregnant. Birth control is more regulated then (sp) abortion. The thing that PREVENTS rather then (sp)KILLS a baby. How does this make any sense?

It doesn't. And it's not suppose (sp) too. The ruling class is showing what exactly it thinks of you, and everyone's going along with it. Humans are cattle. Babies are particularly expendable cattle as all they do is take up time, and cause emotional attachment keeping the other cattle from performing their duties... You can't kill another human being, not because of some moral devestation (sp), but because that's a destroyed asset (makes no sense). A taxpayer, a worker. We've all turned into niggers (speak for yourself, Abie)...

I garan (sp)fucking tee you, if Christians weren't such little pussies, and started actually bombinb (sp) the abortion clinics like everyone seems to think they would. They'd illegalize it. Whether or not they agree with the actions commited, it would become more costly to protect the clinics and maintain order then (sp) it would be to just say "no abortions" and deal with mothers demanding maternity leave, daycares in the buildings where they work, etc. They should have these things anyway, but don't count on them doing it anytime soon. Liberals claim they want these things, and that abortion has to remain legal untill they do. Why? What a sad fucking argument. It sounds like a hostage situation. "Give me what I want or my baby dies!" Some caring human being... bad mothers, and bad people. But I'm just looking at this objectively that they'd ban abortions if people just kept making it cost money to rebuild, relocate, and protect them from onslaught. Then we'll worry about that bridge of helping out single mothers and shit once we cross it. But nothing's going to change if you try to have socialist policies while leaving abortion legal. Noone (sp)wants to pay taxes so a slut can have the choice between killing her baby or meeting his needs. Why should anyone get to have that kind of choice? Why some bitch who wasn't even smart enough to avoid pregnancy at that?!



Do I know better then (sp) a child's own mother? You (grmr)God-damn right I do. I'm not hyped up on hormones, I'm not sixteen, I'm not a woman... that all contributes to me having a much more rational and effective view on everything... This is why forced abortions piss me off far less then "freedom of choice". Even though I still don't like it. But it doesn't have the moral implications of some pretencious (sp)dyke with a shit grin on her face. She doesn't know a God damn thing, but thinks she's in a position to decide life and death. That's a moderator attitude right there.

Atleast when the state decides for her. It makes her feel like a child herself. Which she kind of it (sp). But that shame and desecration will motivate her to keep her fucking legs closed, and unlike abortions. Because since she can't control the abortions, it gets rid of that God complex she has going on in her head. This is why state abortions is (grmr) better then (sp) liberal abortions. The state is always better.

What would be even better then (sp) state abortions is (grmr)democratic abortions. Where we as a community could decide whether or not to kill the child. Or even better then that, a matriarchal (sp) abortion society. Where only men can decide (that would be patriarchal). Because women are fucking stupid (and you aren't?). Say you need the written permission of ten men before you can get an abortion.

I have lessened my position on abortion in recent years, as I used to have a zero tolerance for it, now that I realize the so (-) called social conservatives are not my friends. They're all liars, schemers, and cowards. They'll never commit to a revolution. They don't bomb abortion clinics because God forbid they should look bad and people stop going to church and throwing money at their collection plates. That's all it is. It's all about appearances with both sides. I hate them so God damn much!

But also because I hate faggots, and I believe faggots may be able to be traced back to genetics (boys who advertise their hatred of fags are usually latent fags themselves). If they can, (though we'll never know because of our infantile liberal society not letting us do research on that sortof thing) abortion should remain legal as a form of eugenics. Why not just steralize (sp) women? Because that's too open ended. They may have one gay kid and another straight kid, the point is to drive down the gays, not just nuke the whole God-damn gene pool! More straight kids will also mean a promotion of straight genes... as well, it sends a moral message. If we keep abortion legal against gays (not too many gays get pregnant, Einstein), it says to people that gays are less then (sp) human. So it's okay to kill them. And if you think that's wrong, well then just think about how abortion is legal for all human beings. So we're just being indiscriminately dicks at this point (again, speak for yourself, you moron)!


There is definitely something wrong with your head boy, anyone who has nothing to do but post such rambling rants as this must be off his, or her, rocker. In a freaky way, I feel sorry for your parents.

[Gasfghj]

....

You do realize I'm against abortion right Jesse Jackson? I am just pointing out that libertarinism has no defense against it. That at best, it's a haphazard philosophy that will leave it completely legal anyway. That defining a fetus as a person clause to the constitution got turned down. Which might've worked, but as I said, it got turned down. Your conservative methods do not work in getting shit done. Thats all I'm trying to say.

Abortion is a bourgoise concept anyway. "MY body"... that is their mainline of defense. Before the Reagan boom, abortion was a debate over religion vs population control. And on the surface still is. But it isn't eugenicists getting abortions, it's selfish little whores, and it isn't religious people actually putting a stop to them, it's seculars who view it as harmful to society.

My only hope is that because of neoconservatives sending more and more troops out to die in senseless wars, as during the Stalin administration of Russia, they will have to bar abortions atleast on some level to accomodate all the dead people. We cannot keep up imperialistic wars with a prochoice position. As of rightnow, the democrats are siding with letting fags into the military. Frankly we should kill all the fags too. But notice they're trying to avoid facing the fact either abortion will have to be illegalized, they're going to have to institute a draft, or they're going to have to stop having so many God-damn wars.

I do not condone our imperialism. For we have the most fags per capita. Therefore the best war would be a civil war to put a stop to all the faggots. I'm just giving everyone the facts. Within our lifetime, we are either going to see a ban on abortions, an end to American imperialism, or a draft. I don't know which one yet. But I have a feeling it'll be a draft.



Which imo, is okay. I don't like imperialism, but I do like drafts. I like ultra patriotism, and people thinking as a military unit. We become a martial state that works together to destroy foreign scum... It's unfourtanate that we are the biggest monsters in the world. But maybe a draft would change that. When people start to see how unfucking reliable faggots are on the battlefield, and are no longer ignorant in their households getting fat and working at starbucks or the gas stations... they'll start seeing why no other country tolerates them half as much as we do.

A martial state would also turn the average American into a respectable person who holds a REAL job. Not just footsoldiers, but engineers, welders, medics, therapists, and journalists. I would love to be an artist and write riveting propaganda novels and movie films to boost our soldier's morale.

So I don't like this war... but gentlemen... I like war! I thought of writing my own version of the communist manifesto called the communist manly fist-o! With a balled black fist in a red background. It would be my take on the possible future of hummanity, there's some good possibilities, alot of bad possibilities, and it would be a self help guide on how to look at life and other people... I call my politics "hateocracy". Communism is just the means.

http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=44495

Copyright (more proof capitalism needs to go) made it difficult for me to find a good one, but everyone says I look and sound like the major from hellsing.

[RobsShow]

Well what do you propose mr.libertarian? You okay with some states keeping it legal and some states not? That's not really a position.

Or you believe in freemarkets... why not just wait for the magic of the invisible hand to make abortion obselete? (Oh wait... birth control and condoms should've done that already but they didn't) Infact, maybe you'll get lucky, and Jesus will descend from heaven, and he'll be wearing invisible hand gloves. Then you can have both your pagan gods save you from the mean old abortions that you won't do shit about.

I am now totally convinced, you are mentally incompetent to be out in public without a keeper. Damn, you're sick!!

[standaman]

I thought you were a communist jim???

[itaspCatCriny]

Yes, I'm one of those "right-wing nuts" that believe killing innocent kids is wrong.....

You are one of those right wing nuts who believes that the Fetus has rights and control OVER the mother.

You would be willing to force a mother to die in childbirth rather than have a life saving medical procedure.

And don't tell me that you are for abortion in that case, because you don't know often time until it's too late.

[horoshevapola]

I believe in the right's of the Mother to afford a fetus to leech off of her. If the Fetus can live on it's own, then it's murder, but if you are simply removing life support, different story.

[sjdflghd]

You are one of those right wing nuts who believes that the Fetus has rights and control OVER the mother.

You would be willing to force a mother to die in childbirth rather than have a life saving medical procedure.

And don't tell me that you are for abortion in that case, because you don't know often time until it's too late.

No I would NOT hold a fetus' life above the mother....

But thats where I draw the line....

You dont abort babies because it happens to be convenient or it makes the parents lifestyle better, err worse in liberals cases.

[Diwokfkq]

You dont abort babies because it happens to be convenient or it makes the parents lifesyles' better. My line is Birth, it is clean and simple. How do you decide what mothers are really in danger and which ones just want a better lifestyle? Are you suggesting we create a Government Organization to do this? Sorry, but I believe in smaller government, less spending, so that solution doesn't work for me.

You can argue all night and day about if one particular mother's life is in danger, but what you can't argue about is if the baby has been born yet or not.

Another good question is do you want to force a child on to parents who are not capable of raising that child? I understand that your argument is that if people are to engage in such fiendish acts as sex, they should be stuck with the consequences, and to do anything else would be unfair to the child. I just think that is in practical when it comes down to it. First there is no good way to differentiate between a mother in a danger, and one not, because you can always find a physician that will argue she isn't in danger, or is in danger, no matter what. Second I feel that forcing children on Parents who aren't capable of taking care of them leads to either a neglected child, or worse. It sure is easy to say that from your position, but if you were in the position of accidentally getting pregnant, you may understand the impracticality of just having that kid, just to serve a moral platitude.

[11Pecepebra]

My line is Birth, it is clean and simple. How do you decide what mothers are really in danger and which ones just want a better lifestyle? Are you suggesting we create a Government Organization to do this? Sorry, but I believe in smaller government, less spending, so that solution doesn't work for me.

You can argue all night and day about if one particular mother's life is in danger, but what you can't argue about is if the baby has been born yet or not.

Another good question is do you want to force a child on to parents who are not capable of raising that child? I understand that your argument is that if people are to engage in such fiendish acts as sex, they should be stuck with the consequences, and to do anything else would be unfair to the child. I just think that is in practical when it comes down to it. First there is no good way to differentiate between a mother in a danger, and one not, because you can always find a physician that will argue she isn't in danger, or is in danger, no matter what. Second I feel that forcing children on Parents who aren't capable of taking care of them leads to either a neglected child, or worse. It sure is easy to say that from your position, but if you were in the position of accidentally getting pregnant, you may understand the impracticality of just having that kid, just to serve a moral platitude.

MMM ectopic pregnancy..... I'm also fantastic in physiology.

Its MEGA rare that a womans life would EVER be threatened in modern times by a pregnancy.

[GillTeepbew]

MMM ectopic pregnancy..... I'm also fantastic in physiology.

Its MEGA rare that a womans life would EVER be threatened in modern times by a pregnancy.

So does that mean as a general rule the Woman should have to go to extreme means to prove that her life is in danger to get such a procedure, and the general rule should be that the mother must provide life support, and birth the fetus without extensive medical proof it will kill her?

So what about Mothers who die in childbirth who's doctors told her she would be ok? If a Mother feels that her child is going to kill her, yet can't prove it medically, is she put to death?

I simply don't agree with that. This is not a question of a right to life, it's a question of the rights of which life, because you can't have both. If a Woman is raped, does that rape baby, with the rapists genes, now have the right to incubate inside of her, leeching off of her body disfiguring her through no choice of her own?

There are a million reasons why an abortion could be the right thing, and while practicality is the biggest one, there are enough good reasons why abortion can be helpful that it should be readily available and legal.

[Janarealiti]

So does that mean as a general rule the Woman should have to go to extreme means to prove that her life is in danger to get such a procedure, and the general rule should be that the mother must provide life support, and birth the fetus without extensive medical proof it will kill her?

So what about Mothers who die in childbirth who's doctors told her she would be ok? If a Mother feels that her child is going to kill her, yet can't prove it medically, is she put to death?

I simply don't agree with that. This is not a question of a right to life, it's a question of the rights of which life, because you can't have both. If a Woman is raped, does that rape baby, with the rapists genes, now have the right to incubate inside of her, leeching off of her body disfiguring her through no choice of her own?

There are a million reasons why an abortion could be the right thing, and while practicality is the biggest one, there are enough good reasons why abortion can be helpful that it should be readily available and legal.

It means I understand........

[DzjwMKo5]

what means that?

[bobibnoxx]

I thought you were a communist jim???

How is my rhetoric not of a communist?

Also I'd rather a woman die then a fetus, I admit it. Women are effin' useless besides making babies. If it comes down to both dying or the baby, both die. Just out of principle.

This country needs more h8.

So let me make it clear...

State abortions are better then freechoice abortions.
State abortions is better then booboo Christian prolife like you.
Booboo Christian prolife is better then freechoice.
No abortions is best.

[unapelosina]

no I want to enslave my felloiw populace and want to kill...

ha,,,,,