A woman in New Jersey recently made headlines with her recent abortion or, more specifically, her desire to put it on film:
Emily Letts, a counselor at a New Jersey abortion clinic, decided to film her own abortion and post it on YouTube as a form of positive inspiration to women who are contemplating having the procedure but worry that they might feel guilty afterward.
Letts has no such guilt. She recalls the procedure with fondness. She even describes it as “birth-like,” and said it made her feel good, just like giving birth would.
Letts, whose job involves encouraging women to have abortions, sees her own abortion as an entirely positive experience, and hopes the video will prove to be both instructional and morally persuasive. She feels better about herself every time she watches the video, according to Cosmopolitan.
“Still, every time I watch the video, I love it,” she wrote. “I love how positive it is. I think that there are just no positive abortion stories on video for everyone to see. But mine is.”
The disturbing video has been viewed 10,000 times on YouTube. During the three-minute procedure, she repeatedly tells herself how lucky she is. She also hums to herself.
After the abortion is over, she says, “Cool. I feel good.”
Letts writes that having an abortion and giving birth produce similarly happy feelings. Despite aborting her child, she kept the sonogram.
This incident has highlighted for me a key pitfall of the pro-choice perspective: its potential to desensitize us to the loss of human life.
It is not uncommon, for example, to hear those in the pro-choice camp compare the act of abortion to masturbation, arguing that men who oppose abortion ought to feel similarly distraught over the loss of their ejaculate in the wake of a masturbatory act.
This is folly, of course. When those men masturbate, they release individual sperm cells. The equivalent to such an act would be a film of a woman disposing of individual egg cells.
When an individual egg cell and an individual sperm cell combine, however, the result is the beginning of a human life cycle (the formation of an embryo which, after 9 weeks, becomes a fetus). An abortion is an act designed to exterminate that life. This is a fundamentally different from the act of masturbation or egg harvesting because you are no longer dealing with individual sperm or egg cells (which, on their own, can never produce a human life). A human embryo/fetus is a different thing altogether—it is a human life. The “abortion is just like masturbation” argument is disingenuous in its failure to just accept what abortion really means.
An abortion is a concerted effort to end a human life at its very earliest stages. You are not eliminating a bunch of cells—you are eliminating a developing human being. That is what it is. Those who adopt a pro-choice perspective are within their rights, but they need to be honest about what that means. One need not exaggerate it, or downplay it, or make false comparisons to utterly incomparable acts: just accept it.
When we accept abortion for what it is, we can truly see the madness in the action of women like Emily Letts, who wish to downplay the significance of the act. There is nothing “cool” about the act of extinguishing a human life at its very earliest stages. It is not “fun”, “positive” or “birth like”. Abortion is a necessary evil at best, an option to be chosen in the face of very poor alternatives that can be avoided in no other way.
A pro-choice perspective that encourages the legality of abortion for these pragmatic reasons is not out of line, but a pro-choice perspective that seeks to promote abortion by (a) pretending that abortion is something other than what it is, (b) de-emphasizing the value of human life, or (c) all of the above is ignorant at best and downright malicious at its worst. When we encourage abortion, we can’t forget the seriousness of the consequences of that act: it may be necessary to suffer them in many cases, but they can’t ever be taken lightly.
Again, none of this is to say that people should never support the right of women to terminate a pregnancy. There are some good arguments behind the pro-choice position and I understand them. The tolerance for abortion as a necessary evil, however, should not ever be mistaken for or molded into the promotion of the act as an ideal outcome. Abortion is not a desirable outcome and should never be treated as such: in an ideal scenario, the act would be legally tolerated, but also very rare. Women like Emily Letts who forget this must never be taken seriously.
Read Next: How To End Abortion Without Involving Politicians
Abortion is KIND OF funny. Just look at South Park. Your breakin’ my balls here.
That lady is sick. How can you laugh while taking a human life. Fucking disgusting.
Emily Letts, on my perma-ban date list.
Perhaps it is time for “10 reasons to pick up chicks at the abortion clinic” on ROK?
If Emily is any indication, she should be giving IOI’s immediately upon exiting, right?
“How can you laugh while taking a human life.”
Easily…if you are soulless psychopath like this nutjob.
I laugh constantly while running people over on GTA… and sometimes in real life.
Hey, at least they’re not coming after you for that undeserved child support you’re always complaining about. Can’t have it both ways you effing hypocrites.
Feminists are hypocrites; they love kittens and puppies but hate babies. Here’s how you expose their hypocrisy:
1) Film kitten and/or puppy abortions and put them on YouTube or LiveLeak.
2) Watch the animal-loving radical feminists lose it.
3) …
4) Profit
If YouTube shows the baby-murder but not the kitty/puppy reproductive healthcare, call them out on their hypocrisy too.
Sick, but horrendously logical. If I had a friend who was a vet, I would fund this video and watch the mental meltdowns.
A flyer that offers discounted abortions of kittens/puppies (aka “reproductive healthcare”) should set them off. The flyer would describe proper cutting and squishing techniques, and environmentally sound disposal leftovers via recycling and creation of biodiesel.
Also, a Certificate of Recognition and Achievement for women who abort their children would be nice. Let’s recognize their “heroic” actions.
Abortion is an emotional issue; an effective response should counter the positive feeeelings associated with the practice. The freedom of expression described above would not violate anyone’s constitutional rights and would compel abortionists to confront their inconsistencies, delusions and hypocrisies.
It means a lot to us because, unlike feminists, we’re human beings. You and I both know the hamster is not so easily defeated. It is all about her, and no one else. Even those dogs and cats she pretends to love, have no identity outside of her own ego. I’m not saying they will dismiss the dog/cat abortions as “ok”. I’m saying that they will say women’s abortions are different because “a woman’s independent choice should not be interfered with”, and you can’t say the female dog is exercising a choice.
Sick, psychopathic logic? You bet. The logic of the vast majority of females? you better bet!
Pictures of aborted babies: http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/
We need pictures of aborted kittens and Pomeranians to drive the femmies crazy.
They hate everything to do with life and living… They’re like a cancer.
Yup. So kill ’em. According to your logic.
Please… don’t hurt any kittens…
I don’t think we are talking about hurting kittens, just “unwanted” kitten fetuses. Everyone knows that kitten fetuses do not feel pain. Kitten abortion is not kitten murder because fetuses are not viable outside the womb and are therefore not real kittens.
“Unwanted” kitten fetuses grow up poor and unhaaapy, therefore kitten-abortion is for their own good and the good of society. Anyone opposed to kitten abortions is a hater who should pay for the welfare of all “unwanted” kittens because else misogyny.
Thanks for understanding.
Were you missing a sarc tag?
lol…
eh?
Yup. Or pay for all the animal euthenasias that occur every single day. Do you really think pro choicers are opposed to animal fetuses being aborted? That was the stupidest analogy you could’ve thought up. Well, maybe not, I’ll check back and see what other moronic comments get posted.
In news today! A Chinese girl cut the head off a cat and posted it on social media. All these western deranged women are calling for her to be beheaded! All I can say is she is going to make done man very happy as a wife!
Hypocrites in the sense that I’ve met many a feminist who is a PETA type vegan claiming the suffering and death of an animal as the greatest moral crisis while being highly pro abortion. That’s the thing you got to remember about WASPs they love animals and hate people- Gordan Gekko.
Except that a cat or dog can’t consent to an abortion. That’s what makes it wrong, not whatever kitten or puppy fetus is disposed of.
Cows don’t consent to be butchered for meat. Does that make it wrong?
This is one area where I side with feminists. I’m very much pro-choice. Why? Because there’s a clear connection between abortion and lower crime rate. The evidence is quite compelling. When you allow people to abort children they don’t want, those children don’t grow up to become criminals. Nor are taxpayers burdened with paying for their housing and education. Thus, we all win.
http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/
So, abort any child or adult who displays criminal traits and the crime rate will be zero. Right? Utilitarianism is so easy and fun!
No, simply allow the women who want abortions to get them. This is not eugenics, and that’s not the argument I made. Women who are incapable of raising children should not be forced to have them. Almost half of the women who get abortions live below the poverty line.
You know that was not what he advocated.
But that is what I advocated using his logic. Keep up here.
I say simply allow the taxpayers who don’t want criminals and welfare bums to get them aborted. I have seen the debates whether abortion is eugenic or dysgenic, but that wasn’t where I was headed. I’m just using your logic to a new approach which you’re apparently unprepared to follow. What’s-a-matter?
If you want to live in a world without taxpayers but plenty of criminals, there are a few 3rd world nations I can recommend you.
You’re taking his example and creating an unrealistic, extreme viewpoint from it. That’s like taking a conservative’s argument and making it out to be a fascist’s – it holds no value.
I have the same belief as you Democritus. The value of lives and morals swiftly dwindle when those lives and morals jeopardize the civilization that allowed them to even have value. It’s not a very fun or comforting truth, but when did the readers of RoK ever hold comfort over truth?
How is it an unrealistic position? Liquidate the poor slobs though euthanasia, genocide, slaughter, sterilization, prima noctes, whatever means. It’s been done many times by many governments, it can be done again. You don’t have to make a big deal about it. They’re just little lumps of flesh. They’re a drain on society. Just abort them, post natal abortion.
How ’bout, the women who prove themselves incapable of being responsible while procreating, are either sterilized or executed? Why do so many people speak as though we could take it for granted, that the unwanted *child* is the problem? The unwanted child is not the problem. He is the innocent, and it is a gross injustice that he should pay for his mother’s fecklessness with his own life.
The problem, is the woman who is having kids despite not wanting them. *She* is the problem, and she is the one who should bear the burden of fixing the problem. If a life must be taken to fix the problem, hers is the life to take.
I can agree with you that the value of life changes, when that life becomes a threat to others. Or, rather, not that the life becomes less valuable, but that the “owner” of that life loses his controlling interest in his life, and those affected by him have the right to assert themselves against him.
But, this is precisely the point: our willingness to take that life, to consider that life “less valuable” (in a sense), should come only when that person is guilty, is actually, proactively a threat. In an abortion, it is precisely the only innocent person, who is paying the penalty. If unwanted kids become criminals later, fine. They are guilty. Kill them. I’m all for the death penalty for any violent crime and many more serious misdemeanors (i.e., execute a man who steals a car or commits a murder, rape, assault with a deadly weapon, etc.). The crime rate goes down when criminals are actually executed, rather than continually caught and released.
Or, furthermore, if we want to say that simply having the unwanted kids in the first place is a threat, that’s also fine. But again, the child is precisely the only innocent and non-threatening party to the whole affair. Who is the threat? Who is guilty? The woman having the kids she doesn’t want and can’t support, obviously. Logically, *she* is the problem, not the kid per se. *She* should pay the price, not the innocent child. If she is popping out kids that she can’t or won’t care for, fine. Sterilize or execute her. Believe it or not, I think execution is more natural and humane than sterilization.
Punish the guilty; spare the innocent. Do not insist that babes bear the weight of their mother’s crimes. Make the mothers pay for their negligence. It is unjust to murder the child, instead of punishing the actually responsible party.
I would disagree about using capital punishment for things such as car theft (an eye for an eye is just, a head for an eye, not so much). Aside from that, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. Sterilization of those who irresponsibly procreate with wanton abandon (men and women) would arguably be the best course of action for society as a whole.
Unfortunately that will never happen with our current society, which leaves the less tasteful option of legalized abortion. It’s all a matter of realistic goals, and right now, that drastic of a change is unrealistic.
I can understand the difference of opinion on capital punishment and proportionality. I’ve just come to believe – and to see that past, healthy societies agreed – that a society doesn’t want the kind of person around, who would rob something of great value. In the Old West, they would string up an horse-thief, no problem. I see a certain wisdom in that.
I agree that it is not exactly realistic to hope for this drastic change, tomorrow. But the Left gradually pushes everything leftwards by taking positions that are just outside the comfort-zone, to the left. Then, as people are absorbing that idea, the somewhat nearer leftward view suddenly seems more reasonable. I think we need to quit fighting the left by conceding our ground all the time and drifting into their new premises. Rather, I think we need to set our goal posts further on the side of reason, even if it’s a bit beyond the comfort zone to the right. When people start to hear the idea that maybe we should just execute welfare whores and armed robbers, suddenly at least suspending welfare benefits and executing murderers seems less “extremist.” This is all the more true, if people realize that it’s actually kind of logical to execute whores and thugs, no matter how uncomfortable. Their emotions may stop them short of throwing Octo-Mom off a cliff while singing folk-songs that encourage their daughters not to meet the same fate (for now), but they’ll be far more likely to agree that we should sterilize her, put her kids up for adoption, and send her to a labor camp that will help shoulder the expense of the children she begat.
You make a very good point.
The biggest problem would be how we approached it. For the most part, the left uses an emotional approach to further their goals while the right uses a logical approach to further their goals. And we all see who’s been winning. The problem is that people are too far removed from unborn babies. Women will fight tooth and nail to hold onto their ridiculous amount of power over conception, and the average American man will subconsciously side with the cute girl over a fetus he can’t relate to. Videos of babies and/or aborted babies don’t work, or animal shelters would be revolving doors. So the question is, how do you get men and some women to emotionally connect to something they can’t relate to?
See Islamist countries above. So what do we do with the orphan child now?
In Britain they used to execute people for stealing an apple. Didn’t work, just made the criminals as ruthless as the authorities. Might as well kill that guy for his apple and make it worth the death penalty. Not only that, you wound up with a lot of jury nullifications because people couldn’t bear to send someone to hang for a misdemeanor. You’re going to kill a man for stealing a car? Seems disproportionate.
I certainly think that grand theft merits an hanging. I would allow a criminal one mistake for non-violent crimes. But once a person has demonstrated a willingness to repeatedly commit a crime like that? Sure. We don’t need them around. When it comes to violent crimes, I’d hang them right off the bat.
That is the kicker, isn’t it?
I think for the brightest people, the study of philosophy and theology can produce the deeper connections you mention. That’s what pulled me out of atheism: a bit of logic, then some philosophy, and finally theology.
For people who are less bright, this has always been the good of an healthy religious culture. And to be clear, I’m not saying that religion is for stupid people; I like to think that I’m an intelligent man, and I’m very religious. I also just mentioned the study of theology above. But the fact, is that most people of average intelligence are not going to read Platonic dialogues in Greek, or study the Summa Theologiae with alacrity. They are going to absorb the deeper truths through prayer, through homilies, through worship, through loving and serving their families and neighbours, through life experiences informed by the Transcendent. That’s what a good parish priest and a life of prayer and service is good for. Even the most brilliant folk need this to be well-rounded.
And, for the degenerate and the stupid, you don’t bother trying to form their connection to the child in utero. You appeal directly to the one thing they care about: themselves. You make them understand that you will greatly inconvenience them, or even cause them to cease to be, if they can’t get it together.
What do you do with any other orphan?
I detest Islam with the fury of a thousand suns. But not everything Islam does is wrong. They are humans, you know, and they do get some things right. Christian countries, when they were still civilized, also punished adulteresses, fornicators and whores. Nothing wrong with that.
So if you’re a car thief it will be in your interest to eliminate any witnesses and the police if they try to arrest you since you are fighting for your life. A more violent world? And let’s not forget the practical issues of hanging someone who later turns out to be innocent.
Because that’s just never going to happen. We don’t live in a draconian Catholic theocracy, thankfully. Banning abortion does nothing but pushes it underground. It’s quite easy for any woman to take high amounts of ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) to force a miscarriage. There’s always the kick in the stomach or the coat hanger in the back alley. I bet you also think if we banned alcohol everyone would stop drinking and alcohol related crime would disappear. 😉 In reality, abortion rates are higher in countries where abortion is illegal. (I can almost taste your cognitive dissonance.)
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/story/health/story/2012-01-18/Higher-abortion-rates-where-its-illegal/52641546/1
You’re just an ideological crackpot who makes fervently emotional religious arguments. There’s how you think things should be, and then there’s how things actually are. As a Roman Catholic, you should be used to this kind of mental gymnastics.
Why do you detest Islam in particular? Its fundamentally the same as Christianity as you indicate and also Judaism. Interesting that you think murdering mothers is one of the better parts of Islam.
Anyway you avoided the question. What happens to the orphan child after you murdered his mother? And who gets to explain that to him?
No, I didn’t avoid the question. Pay attention and use your head. My answer was designed to indicate that the answer is obvious.
The fact that you have responded in such a passive-aggressive, effeminate way in the first part of your post, indicates that you are not interested in a serious conversation. It should be plain as day that Islam is very different from Christianity in most ways; it should also be plain that “murdering mothers” is not at all the same thing as executing whores and adulteresses. Man up and grow up, chap. You argue like an evasive feminist.
Fine, let it go underground. Civilized societies don’t legalize murder. Some things are shameful, and should be found only in back alleys. Outlawing murder and infanticide is the rational approach that any Natural Law government should take, not only glorious and God-fearing Catholic theocracies, long may they reign.
Obviously, you don’t execute someone unless you have extremely solid evidence that they committed the crime; neither should you jail someone for long periods without similar evidence. I’ve always been unimpressed with this argument, to some extent, because I’d frankly be more pissed off at being jailed for 30 years unjustly, than at being executed. In execution you can make peace with God and get on to the next world; being jailed unjustly is a royal pain in the ass.
You have the usual problem of modernists and pragmatists; you always argue from the exception, and seem to be of the opinion that we should do x, y or z not because it is right, but because it seems more practical or utilitarian for rather middling goals. The irony, is that when we embrace the policies that are right, in the long term it actually leads to more eudaimonism in society, whereas when we aim at what seems more “practical,” we fail to attain the eudaimonism that the practical steps were attempting to attain more directly. What a piece of work, is man! He can be godlike when he wants, but his very capacity for godlikeness often shows him to be the ape.
How about, the MEN who prove themselves incapable of being responsible while procreating are either sterilized or executed? Oh wait, my bad, they have nothing to do with it.
Oh, whores and adulteresses aren’t mothers after they give birth? And speaking of evading, what DOES happen to the orphan children of these whores and adulteresses you want to execute?
Come out of the 15th century and join the rest of us.
You disappoint me with your resort to petty insults. I understand a certain level of frustration when trying to convince someone of the validity of your argument but this kind of behavior makes you appear defensive and sadly quite juvenile.
At a certain point, I would agree, as I had already said elsewhere. The woman bears most responsibility, and the punishment should come quicker and harder on her. But yes, even men merit the death penalty for such behaviour.
“Murdering a mother,” flatly stated, means “taking a mother’s life unjustly.” Executing an whore or adulteress, means “taking the life of a woman justly, for grave crimes, irrespective of her status as a mother.” So, when somebody says I’m “murdering a mother,” he is intentionally mis-stating the issue and missing the point. It would be like saying your grandfather went around “murdering fathers,” when in fact he was fighting Nazis in WWII.
Why would the fate of that orphan, be different from that of any other orphan? Do you people really not know what happens to orphans? Is this a difficult and obscure matter that requires the utterances of some mystic oracle? The kid will be raised by the next of kin, if there are any willing, and if not will be put into an orphanage and await adoption. It’s not like his fate is going to be any worse than DEATH at the hands of his mother would have been, or life lived with the woman who wanted to kill him, but didn’t. It’s no wonder college graduates can’t read and write nowadays; people have to hold your hands through everything.
No thanks. This is the most depraved generation to have ever lived.
There is some truth to what you say; I apologize for being rash in condescension. Truly.
I wasn’t frustrated by trying to convince you of my point. I was frustrated because this, and several other of your posts, seemed intentionally passive-aggressive and deliberately obtuse. It is obvious that Islam has almost nothing in common with Christianity, other than a claimed reverence for certain Judaeo-Christian figures of the past. Especially if you are English, it should be clear to you that the savage band of bloodthirsty maniacs polluting your country, are of a completely different religious and cultural disposition than Christians. Islam does not even believe in natural law and cause and effect in the natural realm, which puts them in a special register of insanity, different from almost every other worldview on the planet.
What happens to orphans is obvious and well-known to everyone; why would an orphan of an executed slattern be different than the orphan whose parents died in a car wreck? An orphan is an orphan; they all have sad stories. Because these things are all obvious, it seemed that you were acting like a woman, waving your hands and saying “what about the Children” and “Christians are no different from Islamits,” etc. It’s standard, feminist bs. It’s frustrating to see that on a men’s site. Disagree with me, if you want. There are masculine grounds and methods for disagreeing with me. Just don’t do the hysterical, perplexed leftist routine. It’s beneath you, and, I admit, it was frustrating to me.
lol. this is a ridiculously circular argument. if the fetus is aborted, there is no orphan. what’re you going to do, stand outside abortion clinics and pick off the women as they leave? if she carries to term, then how do you justify execution? why am i even responding to this crap? it’s pretty obvious who needs their hand held.
you are, quite simply, crazy.
I appreciate the apology.
I am puzzled by your characterisation of my comments as hysterical. As far as I can tell I have asked you some fairly neutral and rational questions that follow from your argument. Are you sure you are not projecting your own emotions on to me?
For example, your characterisation of Islam seems quite hysterical to me. I have know plenty of Muslims in my life and they are nothing like you describe. I have also known plenty of Christians having grown up attending Catholic school. Besides that, having a general understanding of history I see very little difference between Christianity, Judaism and Islam, especially since these three religions developed in the same part of the world and refer to the same books, with the same basic structure (i.e. one god, virtually same prophets, rules etc.). You note Islam’s “bloodthirsty” nature but haven’t the Judeo-Christian West been bombarding Muslims for more than sixty years and before that been tearing each other apart for 2000 years?
It is interesting that you believe that what happens to orphans is obvious yet you cannot describe it yourself other than in a circular manner. These evasions imply that you actually realise that killing a mother who wanted to abort her child is really no solution at all and in fact creates lasting and deep problems instead.
You need to pay attention. You’re not the only person who has participated in the conversation. Englishbob raised the question of orphans because, I assume, he imagined that these women may have other children, whom they did not abort. In that case, those children would be orphaned upon their mother’s execution. Obviously we were not talking about the infant in the womb for the reasons you brilliantly elucidated.
Though, it is possible that you might find a mother in the act of trying to procure an abortion, in which case you would force her to bring it to term and then execute her, and the infant who escaped abortion would be orphaned, and would have to be given to people who would treat it with human dignity.
That’s a lot to address!
Orphans are taken in by willing next of kin, or are put up for adoption. I can’t believe that needed to be said, but there you go.
The similarities between Islam and Judaeo-Christianity would only seem close, to one without a more detailed knowledge of them. Islam bears some similarity to Judaism, it is true, in terms of the Semitic culture and the “Old Testament” approach to law. But Islam only accepts Judaeo-Christian Scriptures and Prophets in a nominal way. Islam teaches that the Bible has been altered into a complete different form, and so, while they honor many of the same people, they have a completely different view of who they were and what they did. For example, they believe Jesus was a mere man, that he was not crucified, etc. So, like Mormons, they use the same names and people as Judaeo-Christianity, but they have done a complete re-write of Judaeo-Christianity as it stood.
Past this, most significantly, Islam stresses that there is absolutely no point of similarity or contact, between their deity and the created universe; furthermore, they teach that the whole universe does not, therefore, function in a system of laws related to any concept in the Creator’s mind, but that literally every thing that occurs, happens as a result of the direct will of Allah. I.e., the sun does not give light because God designed a star to function along the lines of nuclear fusion, producing heat and light, but because Allah wills that light come from star x at any given moment. It should be no secret, then, why Christian culture produced all the science! They reject original sin and the idea that this had natural consequences in the order of the cosmos, and so even the bad things that happen are directly willed by Allah in the moment. This whole philosophy has made them very anti-science since the rejection of Hellenic influences on Islam in the Middle Ages, and also undergirds the suicide-bomber philosophy, where there is no need to feel morally guilty for killing innocents, because Jihad for Allah is great, and Allah can stop anyone from dying that he doesn’t want dead, and in point of fact, anybody who dies is dead because Allah directly willed it.
It should go without saying that this is nothing like the Judaeo-Christian worldview. Hinduism and Taoism are closer, theologically, to Christianity. Islam uses the Judaeo-Christian “cast of characters,” but the whole theological outlook is from another universe.
I have also known individual Moslems, and have even been friends with them. But it is a fact of history that, whenever Moslems exist in big enough numbers, they cannot refrain from trying their damnedest to murder or subjugate everyone around them. This is not true of “Islamism,” but of Islam. The wars between Moslems and Christians do not say much about the Christians, other than that they are just-war people who were slow to anger, and never engaged in aggressive wars. The Crusades, for example, were provoked when Islam unilaterally engaged in centuries of warfare against the East Roman Empire, conquering and slaughtering the people in the Near East. When they also started killing innocent pilgrims en route to the holy sites in and around Jerusalem, the Christians founded military monastic orders (Templars, Knights Hospitallers) to protect them. This, plus Islamic aggression against the East Romans, finally prompted the Crusades to defend the Empire and drive the invaders out. The wars in Spain and Southern France were exactly the same: Moslems invaded, unprovoked, from Africa, and the Christians expelled them. Never once did Christians initiate violence against an innocent Moslem population. Rather, Catholic Christians rather patiently bore with the continued raids of Moslem Saracens, etc., along European coastlines.
The current wars against the East are hardly “Christian” wars. They are politically motivated tragedies, which are being initiated and managed by people who are not remotely Christian. Even if you wanted to try to argue that nominal Christians were conducting the wars, they are not conducting them as Christians or in the name of Christ, and in fact, they are conducting them contrary to the teachings of Christ. Moslems, however, are obeying the tenets of their faith when they engage in hostilities against others, subject them to the Jizyah, etc. This has never been the case with Christianity.
I did not mean that your remarks were “hysterical” in the sense of “emotionally supercharged.” Hysterical comes the Greek term hysterikos, which means “from the womb, womanly.” You seemed to me to always be arguing from the exception, and to be arguing along emotional lines. By this I don’t mean that you were being overtly emotionally volatile, but that your argumentative premises were primarily emotional (“What about the orphans?” or reducing my viewpoint to “murdering mothers,” or declaring my views guilty by association by saying “that’s what they do in Islamist countries,” etc.). All of those argumentative tactics are relying on cheap emotional tricks, manipulation, guilt by association, erecting straw men for the purpose of an affectation of outrage, etc. I was frustrated, because it didn’t seem to be a very manly or honest way of arguing. Even if you didn’t advance those tactics in an emotionally volatile way, the fact is that their substance was emotional and not rational. That is why I used the term “hysterical” to describe them.
Sorry to talk so long in addressing each point.
Tell that to Harvey, and he’ll rip your arms off.
Harvey, you’re crazy
I don’t think that goes far enough. Abort all humans, starting with you, and the crime rate will go to zero. Very scientific, environmentally friendly, and it makes feminists happy. Let’s do it.
I don’t commit violent crime. Nice slippery slope and appeal to emotion fallacies though. I’m not surprised this has degenerated into a personal attack instead of an attack on the evidence. Such tactics are often used by people who lack real arguments.
Planning the murder of innocents is a crime in my book. Who says YOU get to decide who is a criminal and who is not? Let’s abort all the baby killers starting proponents of mass babycide.
But that is still murder, I thought you were against killing innocents.
No, not murder, it’s battling global warming. Sometimes, you have to abort babycidists first to make room in the ovens.
I don’t plan anything, nor do I force anyone’s hand. Obviously this is an emotional issue for you, rather than a rational one. The way I see it, if it reduces crime it reduces crime.
Not emotional at all. Dispassionately logical and utilitarian. I’m just running “what if” scenarios so no harm, yet. But, come the anti-crime revolution we will need to do something with all the people who don’t plan anything (those who “suggest” unapproved plans will need to get it).
When you start adopting unwanted children and begin your foster care paperwork let me know. Until then you sound like you are full of vitriol and emotion, but zero rational thought.
When I start tapping asses and making babies, I will step up and sign the foster care paperwork.
When the anti-baby-killer revolution comes, It will be only rational that we whack the people who suggest hare-brained schemes such as killing the unborn because someone special deems them “unwanted.”
Considering how difficult it is to raise one child I doubt you will do a damn thing when and if you reproduce. No anti baby killer revolution will come because you will be to busy working two jobs to feed the one kid you do have to start a revolution against anything.
Listen to yourself. You advocate killing human beings because, *in your opinion*, they are unwanted or costly. Why stop there? Don’t take my words literally; I was just pointing out that people who suggest killing “the other” often end up on the other side of the killing: what happens to Nazis when Stalinists take over? what happens to abortionists when pro-lifers take over? Take your plans to their potential conclusion.
You don’t understand , you have no say in the matter the courts have decided for you per the Elites desires. No revolution is coming, a lone idiot my kill a doctor but that is just as effective as Elliot Roger shooting up a school because he could not get laid. Everyone agrees Elliot is a nut and Incels still do not get laid. Shoot a doctor everyone thinks you are a nut , abortion continues unabated, and America moves on revolution free.
You’re actually only advocating against aborting them, not saving their lives. After the children are born, they still need to be fed, housed, and educated at minimum. It all costs money. Since you’re so passionate about this, if you want to pay for it, knock yourself out. You’ll be a hero. Start a charity that pays to raise the children that these women in poverty can’t afford to raise themselves. I suspect you’ll want me to help pay for them though.
Also, I’m a social darwinist, so the appeals to emotion aren’t going to work on me.
He is likely pro death penalty and trying children as adults for heinous crimes, so he wants to kill them just later after they burden society.
Wrong. Anti death penalty. See, no inconsistency.
What’s wrong with the death penalty?
Comprehension, dude, comprehension. If you are going to suggest something as extreme as killing the inconvenient, you should consider the possibility that you will not have a monopoly on insane ideas. You got to see crazy from the outside, no need for a “revolution” but hey, if your nutso ideas fly, that will mean that society has gone full crazy and all bets are off.
No deterrent
kills innocents
applied unevenly to the poor, the colored, and the male
costs beaucoup bucks
no do-overs so errors cannot be fixed
not as effective as life without parole
Not an appeal to emotion, appeal to your selfish sense of self preservation. Even unemotional dodos understand turnabout being fair play, etc.
It’s not so much of a deterrent as it is preventative of future crimes from that person. You hear often enough of murderers getting out and killing again.
Nothing’s perfect. If we didn’t do anything that killed innocents we’d be doing nothing. The ratios are what matters.
Correlation is not causation. Statistically speaking, poor, colored men have a higher chance of committing crimes in the US. Therefore, by the odds, poor, colored men will be the most likely to earn the death penalty.
Oh and keeping someone in jail doesn’t cost huge amounts of money? I haven’t done the research on this, but I’d be willing to bet it costs more to keep someone in jail for life than it does to kill them.
No do-overs?! Dude you need to read up on something you’re going to talk about. The moment someone’s found guilty when capital punishment is on the line, the trial is given a direct review, which often times leads to retrials.
If the person never reenters society, how can you judge one to be more effective?
37 people on death row released by DNA evidence since 2001. Logically at some point prior to DNA PCR and testing some innocent man or woman was put to death. It may have not even been malicious , just misidentification by a witness, over zealous police, or ambitious prosecution. That is why I don’t support the death penalty. As much as it pains me that innocent men were executed , the actual killers were still free…
As I said, nothing is perfect. In this day and age, with fingerprinting, DNA sampling, hair identification, etc it’s virtually unheard of to wrongly convict someone of a major crime WHEN enough hard evidence is there. If there’s not enough hard evidence, then the person should be found innocent anyway. I understand that today, it’s usually “guilty until proven innocent” instead of “innocent until proven guilty,” but that’s a problem with the morality of the jury, not of the punishment.
Arguing the morality of using the death penalty in that past, when the veracity of proving one’s innocence/guilt was drastically less, has no effect on whether it should be used today. Before parachutes were invented, I’d be an idiot to jump off the face of a cliff. But that doesn’t matter now, because parachutes and the proper training to use them exist.
I think the point he’s trying to make, is that your view is consequentialist and morally adrift. You speak as though the desirability of a low crime rate justified even the horrific means of mass murdering innocent children, to attain that end. He was pointing out that, if you want a low crime rate and are not ethically concerned with murdering innocents, there’s no reason to stop with abortion.
Your reply, that you “don’t commit violent crime,” also incriminates your viewpoint and indicates that, at the core of it, you understand the justice in my point of view. Because, of course, an infant being aborted does not commit violent crime either; he is victimized by a violent crime. That’s the whole point. You don’t pre-emptively murder people because you think there’s a good chance they will commit violent crime when they’re all grown up. You don’t murder people at all, when they are innocent. You punish the guilty.
That’s why I said the things I said above. If you want to kill somebody to prevent future criminals from being engendered, the person to kill is not the innocent child who, as you said of yourself, does not “commit violent crimes.” The person to eliminate, is the person who is responsible, who is guilty, of the activity that is causing the problem. Who is that? The feckless whore spitting out kids. Make her pay the price; not the innocent children.
I’ll gladly help to pay the way for the first kid a negligent slattern pumps out, provided it is the only one. Under a sensible policy, where she would be sterilized or executed, rather than allowing her to continue to murder child after child after child because she is a precious princess whose judgment must not be questioned, you could be sure that her first illegitimate child would also be her last.
Yeah, what a rube! He thinks we should only kill criminals *after* they commit a crime! Your idea of murdering people while they are still completely innocent and absolutely harmless, long before they have a chance to commit that first crime, is certainly the more enlightened and rational way to go! The crime rate will stay low, only when society is brave enough to kill people even before they have the chance to be criminals.
I once saw a 60 minute special about a gal who was supposed to have been aborted. She had grown up and made a good life for herself; but I bet it’s just a matter of time before her guaranteed, pre-approved criminal status kicks in. She may not be a burden now, but soon, soon, I’m sure… Here’s hoping somebody takes her out, before her tax-paying, upper-middle-class family becomes a criminal burden on society.
Sheesh… can we get a little rational thought in here? Are you honestly chiding him, for thinking that we should wait to kill criminals, until after they have actually become criminals? Re-read your comment. The view you condemn, is precisely the rational view. OF COURSE we should only kill people AFTER they are criminally guilty of something; what the hell is wrong with you, to imply the contrary? This is absurd; I would expect it from women on a women’s site… this is ROK. Who could possibly have such a hare-brained worldview here? People whose first names start with the letter J are statistically more likely to commit crimes. Kill them all! Kill them young! Nip that problem in the bud! Kill their parents! Make everyone refuse to name people with “J” names. Then we can guarantee that the letter-J-related crime rate will plummet.
By the way: there’s nothing contradictory about being pro-life and pro-death penalty, just like there’s nothing contradictory about thinking that a man who kept someone prisoner in his basement for years, could be punished by imprisonment. Some people deserve to live; some deserve to die. Some people deserve not to be locked in a basement for ten years; some people deserve to go to jail for 50. Rational men can reason their way through these difficult, difficult problems.
If allowing abortion creates a more peaceful society, then so be it. Your morals are not my morals, therefore your moral arguments have no value to me. What rational arguments can you provide that aren’t emotionally charged? An unconscious embryo is not a “child” or “baby.” A attempt at semantics and word play to make your argument sound more reasonable than it actually is. An appeal to emotion.
The funny thing is after criticizing me for “murdering innocents,” you talk about murdering the women who have had abortions. The hypocrisy of presenting a moral argument in favor of life, and then presenting a moral argument to kill a fully developed, conscious human being is quite hypocritical and extreme. Should I contact the FBI and tell them I think I found the next Elliot Rodger?
I’m guessing he’s Catholic, as I am. A lot of Catholics feel pressured to believe that being anti-death penalty is somehow part of the Magisterium. In reality, it is modernist idea advanced by Cardinal Bernardin and a few people (including Popes) in modernity. But none of that is official teaching, and, in fact, it is all contradicted by the authentic Magisterium of the Church. The Vatican used to have an executioner; there are numerous Papal bulls indicating that it is permissible in certain instances. It has always been tolerated, and even encouraged in certain cases, by the Church. The Scriptures also indicate that the State has the authority and the commission from God to put criminals to the sword, when St. Paul affirms that the State “does not have the power of the sword in vain.” The consistent interpretation of the Fathers of the Church, has acknowledged that the death penalty is legitimate.
So, in actuality, it is the Magisterium that confirms the death penalty. It is a few modernists speaking out of turn – including St. John Paul, I’m afraid – who have actually taught erroneously on the topic.
Exactly. I’m far less concerned with deterring others from committing a crime, and far more concerned with being damn sure that this guy, this proven criminal, will not be commiting any more of them.
It’s also a mercy, from a spiritual point of view. A man who knows that he will die in three days, is more apt to make peace with his Maker. A criminal on a continuous “catch and release” plan, is likely enough to die in some hellhole without having given a moment’s thought to his eternal soul.
There is no scientific reason to assume that an embryo is not an human person. It is human, with a unique genetic code. It is alive. The fact that it is at an earlier stage of development, does not make it any less a person than a six year old, who has not yet hit puberty and become a full-formed adult.
The idea that consciousness somehow makes your life viable, is also unscientific and irrational. When you are asleep, are you no longer viable? Can I freely murder you during nap-time? The embryo, like you, will soon be conscious and aware, whatever state it may be in, now.
The desire to draw a line for defining human life at any point other than conception – when, medically and scientifically, it is an human life – can only be based on a primarily superstitious or arbitrary rationale. The rational and scientific view, which I would have even if I were not a Catholic, is that something alive, with human DNA, is a human life. And, moreover, if we are going to snuff out a life out, I see no reason why it should be the innocent child, and not the mother whose conscious choices are the obvious cause of the problem.
Such a glib use of “unscientific” and “rational.” I may be asleep, but I still have a fully functioning brain that is working and probably even dreaming. An 8 week old fetus without a developed brain is not comparable to a six year old, no matter how bad you want it to be. A six year old is conscious, can speak and interact with its environment, has memories, etc. Nor is it comparable to an adult who is sleeping. There is no comparison. I don’t suspect I will change your opinion, and I don’t really care to entertain your trolling. Anyone who thinks murdering grown women is ethical is clearly mentally ill. You’re a psychopath on the same level as Elliot Rodger. Seek help.
There’s nothing contradictory about being pro-life and pro-death penalty. One of the women I work with reminds me of you; she also is a good little student of the “enlightenment,” and therefore thinks that it is reasonable to expect that we should all be entitled to personal moralities. On this foundation of supreme ignorance in moral judgment, she told me I was an hypocrite for supporting the death penalty for murders, since “two wrongs don’t make a right.”
I asked her about the recent case of the man who had those three women locked up in his basement for years. What should happen to him? She thought I was still on the death penalty kick, so she said “life in prison, not the death penalty.” I then told her, “but two wrongs don’t make a right! If it was wrong for him to lock those girls up, why is it suddenly okay for us to lock him up?” She was embarrassed, and bowed out of the convo by saying she wasn’t going to “play my game.” Obviously you can do things to criminals, justly, that you can’t do to the innocent without injustice.
I didn’t criticize you for murdering innocents, and re-reading my post, I can confirm I never made the accusation. I criticized you for holding the opinion that it was acceptable to murder innocents in order to merely prevent a possible elevation of the crime rate in the future (without considering the fact that the crime rate is related to many factors, and abortion is probably one of the most tenuous links). And the people I suggested executing, were not innocents at all, but – precisely because they were fully formed – were the far more responsible, deliberate and culpable parties to the affair. I pointed out that it was rational to execute those responsible for a problem, rather than pre-emptively murdering precisely the people who are entirely innocuous.
I have actually sworn oaths that prevent me from bloodshed. Beyond that, I am not in a position of authority, and so I am not empowered to take a life. I said I was in favour of executing these women, not murdering them. I’m not a vigilante.
I would like to compliment you on being such a good little feminist throughout the thread, though. You advocate for moral equivalency, while still irrationally acting as though it was still possible for you to have an objectively superior moral view to me. You advocate shirking responsibility, even to the point of killing innocents (or, even taking your incorrect moral views for granted, you advocate for taking a very cavalier attitude towards human procreation and life) in the name of pre-emptive “justice” and avoiding inconvenience. You entirely embrace pragmatism and consequentialism, whereby whatever end you deem desirable, can justify whatever means necessary. And finally, to top it all off, you drop the threat of ratting my unacceptable speech out to the babysitter. Now, that’s the behaviour a man can be proud of. Whatever women you’re with, I’m sure, deserve you.
G’night.
It’s idiotic to make the blanket statement that a foetus can’t be compared to a six year old. I could just as easily say that a man can’t be compared to a woman. Of course they can be compared; there are plenty of valid grounds for comparison. The grounds most immediately applicable here? They are human and alive. I.e., both are living human persons.
I don’t think murdering grown women is ethical. I do think, that punishing people with the death penalty in certain situations, is entirely ethical. Most importantly, I think it is absurdly irrational when people are willing to massacre millions of defenseless innocents as though it were nothing, but nevertheless want to call *me* a sociopath when I suggest that it may be more rational and less bloodthirsty to simply insist that criminally negligent murderesses be held accountable for their crimes, rather than tolerating them while dutifully murdering all of their innocent children. Who is the sociopath? The guy who wants to punish a murderess and stop her from continuing to victimize children? Or the guy who wants to give her a pass while he vacuums out the bits of millions of infants from such women’s wombs? Who is the mass murderer?
What about their dead-beat fathers? We should execute them too right? Otherwise it’s just misogyny and biased thinking on your part. It takes two to tango.
You’re pretty much right. As I’ve said elsewhere on this thread, the women are most responsible (because “my body my choice” if you are foolish enough to accept that axiom, or, more accurately, because people are more responsible for themselves, than they are for others, or others are for them).
That said, I would still see a man hang for this, depending on the circumstances.
Of course the crime rate goes down when you have fewer people, and pretty much every Western country is in fact at risk of population collapse and/or being overrun by more fertile neighboring populations. Just look around at the state of the USA after Roe v Wade, reduced poverty and crime, but even bigger welfare payments, and even greater panic over threats to safety.
Somebody has to pay to raise all those unwanted children. You think welfare is bad now, just wait until abortion is illegal.
It will never be illegal again in this country, the courts have decided it and although conservative politicians talk a good game they just do it for votes. The elites who run this country want abortion, the Supreme Court paved the way, and now it is here to stay.
I think you’re probably right. I didn’t mean to suggest it would be illegal, just that if it were illegal there’d be a lot of women in poverty cranking out unwanted children. Due to their mother being in poverty they’d certainly be dependent on the welfare state. As I mentioned before, 42% of the women who have abortions live in poverty.
Welfare payments increased because of changes in entitlement programs. Where is the causation link between Roe v. Wade and entitlement programs?
If abortion were illegal our economy would collapse under the weight of the welfare state and prison industrial complex.
No, if abortion were illegal, the sluts would have to learn responsibility. Beta providers would become poosy magnets. There would be fewer out-of-wedlock births. I expected better dynamic thinking from you.
You live in a fantasy world, people would continue to be irresponsible , there would be a shitload of unwanted children, and back room abortions would become commonplace again.
Exactly. The only way to force women to take responsibility is to remove the welfare state that pays them to create bastard children. The welfare state creates incentive for poor men to father as many children as they can, because they don’t need to worry about having to provide for them. If we ban abortion, but keep the welfare state alive, we will just create a whole new entitled generation dependent on the state.
Good point. Another thing that might work is either “financial” abortion (meaning if the guy doesn’t want to pay for a kid he didn’t plan on having, the woman has to go at it alone, and the kid, who’s the only innocent party in all of this, gets to live) OR imposing a two-strikes rule: first time the woman gets pregnant due to both parties willfully engaging in unprotected sex, both parties get a warning; the second time, lock both of ’em up or levy stiff fines. That’ll break up all of this “oops, I forgot to take my pill” or “I’m allergic to condoms” crap. Look at Antonio Cromartie and the woman in Florida with 15 kids. C’mon, people, this shit became ridiculous a long time ago.
Blablabla. Your country was one of the largest economic powerhouses ,your white population had positive demographic growth and abortion was forbidden how can you explain that? Whether you like it or not abortion is one of the multiple evils that has destroyed the West.
Now you are talking like a feminist. Ohh back room abortions, unwanted children ahhh, please where is the violin music?. Whether you accept it or not before abortion and contraception people was forced to behave more responsibly. Those who didn’t simply died. There will always be morons and idiots, abetting them is not the solution.
Bad economic policy, poor education that excludes math, resting on past accomplishments, and politics controlled by money has diminished the west. Abortions not so much.
On education speak for yourself American. My continent of origin (Europe) is still fucked and most of the countries there have better elementary and High school education than the U.S. Besides abortion opened the door to many other evils derived from the cheapening of human life (dead babies providing heat in U.K., erosion of morality on grand scale, contribution to demographic collapse when certain countries abortions are more than live births…)
You addressed education, as to my other points?
People can’t be irresponsible when they are dead. Women who can’t reproduce responsibly, can and should pay for their crimes with their lives or their fertility. They are being promiscuous and, far more serious, they are criminally negligent of their children’s welfare.
Her children should not be sacrificed to Moloch for their mother’s sins. Let her pay the price.
What’s the issue with backroom abortions? Some things should be so shameful that you can only get them in back alleys, at great personal risk. It’s like saying we should legalize pedophilia, so that pedophiles don’t have to drive long distances in the rain for their victims. Who the hell cares what happens to a pedophile, an abortionist or a welfare-junky serial mom? I mean, I care in the sense that I’d like them to repent and be saved. But, if they insist on persevering in their course of action, I feel no responsibility to make it easier on them. I’m all for making it as hard as possible.
Terrific points, here and throughout your posts on this article. You’ve very eloquently summed up my own views in one line — “Some things should be so shameful that you can only get them in back alleys, at great personal risk.”
While your advocation for the executions of these women (who I hold in just as deep contempt) takes things a step too far for me, I get the arguments and I get the rationale. Your defence for the innocent parties should be applauded, for the unborn who are trivialized in the name of convenience and forsaken by a culture sorely misguided.
Yes, and to be honest, I’m not exactly jumping up and down at the idea of executing these women. I honestly think there are other options (force them into a convent, sterilize, etc.) that are better. Though I do think execution is a morally defensible option, that’s not quite my first choice. But when people speak casually of killing the children, I’m willing to make that argument forcefully.
Why? Because I find it absurd, that people think nothing of killing their children, when the children are innocent and the women are the problem. If, as a society, we are willing to take a life to “prevent” future problems, isn’t the only sane approach, to take the life of the woman who is causing the problem? You only have to kill the one woman; how many of her kids’ brains will we vacuum out, though, if we allow her to continue to act as she pleases? I’m perplexed by our willingness to slaughter defenseless innocents in astronomically large numbers, while we balk at executing a far smaller number of women who are actually culpable in the matter.
The men involved should be punished, too; but their responsibility is somewhat less, since they aren’t the ones who will carry the child and (if unmarried) be hanging around when it is born. Still, I suppose I wouldn’t have a problem hanging a serial impregnator either.
Your reasoning is sound. Glad to see someone willing to take an issue as serious as this to its logical extremes.
Such a stance may be uncomfortable but it deserves consideration. The society that’s accepted such a moral wrong as commonplace is the same society fracturing from the endless array of problems outlined in article after article on this site. They’re all symptoms of a deep-rooted disease. Feminism is that disease. And securing its chief tenet of on-demand abortion as culturally acceptable is the bright, flashing indicator that we’ve lost our way. I just hope we can stop the figurative and literal bloodletting and somehow turn the tide.
I’m relatively new to this community but have read your comments to other articles and believe you’re quite the benefit here… keep up the impassioned contributions.
Thanks, my friend; God grant that I am more help than harm to those around me. Sometimes I’m not too sure!
Look at the ethnicity of the freakonomics author. He’s advocating race replacement with third world migrants. That’s his long term game.
Flawless, logic, except for several things. We didn’t seem to have a population/crime problem 40-50 years ago, when the gov’t needed able-bodied men to line up and jump headlong into the meat-grinders they called World Wars I-II, the Korean War, Vietnam, etc. We didn’t have a population or crime problem back when the nation’s survival depended on farmers, who often had (and were encouraged to have) 5+ children to help with the work. Now, all of a sudden, crime’s such a problem and the population is just so unmanageable? Hogwash. Another thing that stands out is that decades ago, the 1% didn’t wield as much power and influence as they do now. Yeah, the oil and steel barons of the roaring 20s threw their weight around a bit, but they never really influenced social or gov’t policy on a grand scale. Now, you have an army of “sheeple” ready to follow Hollyweird and the 1-percenters off any ledge they point to. Remember Agenda 21? That’s not just a conspiracy theory. If we’re not really careful, we could end up like China and India in the space of a few years. We’ve already seen how badly the Social Security system is going to suffer because we won’t have enough working-class people to sustain it. You’ll always have criminals in your society (unless you do like the people of Monaco and make it so that just about everyone can live a middle-class lifestyle). But what about the people who would have struggled out of poverty and become credits to society? Who would have purchased goods, paid taxes, and thus boosted the economy? If you want to make a choice, that’s one thing, but just make sure it’s the choice YOU’RE making, and not the one that some rich schmuck whispered into your ear, like this joker here:
Farmers and their 5+ children aren’t the ones committing crime so that statistic is pointless. High populations in major cities is usually what causes large scale crime.
Haha you think Monaco is middle class- it’s the wealthiest place on earth- a gated city for the people of France and Italy who don’t want to deal with plebs and tax.
What I was trying to say is that the lowest-paid people in Monaco are probably living like what we’d consider Middle Class over here. And before people start screaming, I’m not advocating redistribution of wealth. I’m just saying that if everyone over here was making at least $30-$40K a year, the crime rate would dwindle to nothing, there’d probably be no national deficit to speak of, welfare would be a moot point, and nobody would be squawking about there being too many people placing a burden on the system. Even the chief economists have had to admit that the gap between the rich and poor in this country is at unprecedented levels now.
And the income gap continues to get bigger under Obama !
Agreed, are these people who are against abortion willing to pay for these kids? Because I am not. I would rather them become criminals or starve to death than give one penny to a kid I didn’t help create. We already have a problem with women who want to pop out kids and have other people pay for them. A women actually taking responsibility and deciding she doesn’t want to create a burden on anyone else is refreshing.
I wouldn’t mind giving the kids money if I knew it was going to the kid and not the mother and her bad decisions. Plus you can write of charitable gifts. One of the first things I’ll do when the opportunity presents itself is develop an institution that’s strictly for the betterment of kids – kind of like the kibbutz communities. It’ll be self sufficient, or I’ll just pay for it out of pocket, but investing in children is never a lost cause and it’ll come back to you one way or another. It’s these neurotic parents that are doing all the damage and because of bad science (and laziness), they’re getting all the tax dollars.
Yes, many pro-life people adopt kids and help to bear the burden that way.
Many of us also think that the guilty should bear the punishment for their crimes, rather than that we should sacrifice the innocent for the convenience of the guilty. If a woman is promiscuous and starts popping out kids without an husband and a way to provide for them, fine. Sentence her to death for her slatternly behaviour and her criminal neglect towards her children. Now she will have no more kids, and we didn’t have to punish any innocent children. The guilty party has been identified and permanently prevented from further procreation, and the innocent party has been spared. Problem solved.
The time to “take responsibility,” is before you have created a new life. If you don’t want a kid, close your [email protected]*%ing legs. That’s how you take responsibility. Don’t talk to me about “accidents” with
contraception. Responsible people know that contraception is not 100 percent effective and, therefore, the way they take responsibility for not having kids, is by closing their [email protected]%*$ing legs and, if worst comes to worst, they take responsibility by raising the kid or giving it up for adoption. Abortion is not the only way to avoid raising a kid you don’t want. You can be chaste, or you can give the kid up for adoption. There is literally NO reason for abortion, other than the fact that the woman would rather behave in whatever manner she pleases, while not having to be inconvenienced by pregnancy for three months
(she can still function pretty well for the first five or six). That’s not a very damn good reason. In fact, the kind of woman who would rather kill her child, whom she conceived through her own, deliberate irresponsibility, rather than endure a few months of discomfort and then give the child up for adoption, is the real threat to society.
Thats what they do in some Islamist countries right? Kill a mother who becomes pregnant out of wedlock?
Yup. I’m not opposed, depending on the circumstances. In a Christian country, however, if a girl makes a mistake and it clearly isn’t something she did from personal degeneracy or an habit of vice, it is obviously compassionate not to resort to such methods right away. Let her stay with family somewhere else, or hole up in a convent for a while, and give the baby up for adoption. If this is her second or third go-round, however, it might be time to take things up a notch. Nor do I think the men should be entirely unpunished, though I hold them less responsible.
If she feels that it’s more important to kill the child than to experience some limited embarrassment, however, I start to lose sympathy for her real quick.
First, you’re assuming a net reduction in kids. I think those women who abort have children later, just not as soon. Secondly, I’m all for personal responsibility and I think we’ve coddled our way into an illegitimacy nightmare. If a child out of wedlock is a ruinous event, it will happen less. If its not that bad (the mother’s and father’s family aren’t severely impacted, then it’ll happen more and more.
Shotgun weddings happened for a reason – possibly more financial in nature than for honor or reputation. You created a human being, great. Now you have to take responsibility for it until it is grown.
Phoney argument based on a false premise. You’re making a huge ass assumption stating that all or most of these kids will be criminals and degenerates — basically robbing them of their innocence before the day they’re even born. Who the hell are you to decide what they’ll be? Check the link democritis provided above, most of the kids are being aborted by white women in their 20’s. These are party moms who have already had a kid or two, got divorced, and riding the carousel gets them knocked up again and they decide junior has to go, can’t have their style cramped any further. I would wager most of them are your average divorced single mom Jezebel train wrecks.
Yes we have a huge problem with women popping out kids they want someone else to pay for. The solution is to not subsidize it, you get more of what you subsidize. Abortion is tackling the problem from the wrong angle.
Go back and reread what I said. I did not make any assumption these kids would become criminals. I said I would prefer for them to become criminals before I have to pay one cent toward them. A woman getting a abortion is saying she cannot financially or emotionally support the kid, or worse that she does not want to. Do we need any more kids, especially males, that are raised by a mother that does not want them?
That doesn’t even cover the financial costs. Some of these women would without a doubt ask for financial assistance from the govt. This translates into increased taxes. If even $300 a year of my taxes goes to kids I didn’t create, that’s a extra $25 a month I could of had in my pocket.
The thing is, I am not a unreasonable fella. If the people who would have abortion banned would be willing to pay for these kids that these women don’t want. I don’t got any problem with that. But more likely they would just want higher taxes to force me and others into helping pay for some bitches womb turds.
And, uh, where do men fit into this picture? I was under the impression it took 2 people to get a woman pregnant. Nah, everything to do with reproduction and raising kids is up to women. Men are just concerned with getting them to spread their legs so they can pump and dump and then walk. You guys don’t have the brains of a rock.
Well, how about we give them to their daddies to take care of? Bet a lot of men would change their tune about abortion then.
So much hate here. So many unbalanced men whose mommies didn’t love them.
I have said in two other places on this thread, that the men are also somewhat responsible and should be punished appropriately.
But the woman is obviously more responsible for her own body and her own state of pregnancy, than the man is. I’m sure you could deduce this from the feminist principle “my body my choice,” if not from the common sense acknowledgment that people are more responsible for themselves, than other people.
Dude why the assumptions?
A majority of them are from families not wanting extra kids NOT welfare moms who keep the bab 99.9% of the time
Abortion is the best thing to come from the feminist movement! In fact if you don’t the credit history or means to have children it should be compulsory! Although I prefer sterilisation as a precursor for most thug citizens. To equate their lives with our higher born lives is folly most understand it. What does Civilization need more criminals and welfare parasites or doctors? Who’s lives do we collectively value more? Where my choice in paying tax? Although I’m certainly not a fan of the choice argument. Where’s a mans choice if you are an unfit mother trying to parasite? Plus the legsl morality is dodgey and a clear sign of feminism. If a man effects the effects a foetus it’s murder but a women it’s a walk in the park!
I think it is more about what do you consider murder rather than what is the greater societal good. For example, putting retarded people into death chambers is probably better for society on a whole, but it is a horrendous act that should not be justified on the grounds that it gets ride of an unwanted class of people.
The “abortion lowers crime” argument was debunked years ago: http://www.isteve.com/abortion.htm
As to your little “fact sheet”, it’s no such thing. All of it’s “facts” come from interviewing women who have gotten abortions and then generalizing from there. Speaking as someone who used to perform surveys on public policy issues I can tell you they’re pretty worthless.
There’s the people who lie on purpose for one reason or another, there’s the people who give bad information because they’re too dumb to understand the question, and there’s the people who don’t answer at all. Even if their methodology is good (and it probably isn’t) that’s a shaky foundation on which to base anything.
The evidence is not compelling at all; the Freakonomics guys made the point that there could be a connection, as there is a correlation, but stopped far short of asserting anything conclusive. There is no conclusive proof of this at all. In fact, the crime rate was even lower before abortion was legal. Therefore, there may be other factors involved. Let’s use a little logical thought here! You speak as if abortion was the only way to keep the crime rate down. Obviously, it isn’t.
And, obviously: if abortion rates are high, the crime rate is high. The fact that our stupid, degenerate society does not consider abortion a crime, doesn’t mean that it isn’t a crime. I can understand a punk robbing some old woman at gunpoint, or shooting his fellow gang-banger. I can’t understand a woman vacuuming out the brains of her own child. I can live with a society that has the former kind of criminal; every society, even good ones, has always had them. I can’t stand the heinous stench of the society that tolerates the latter kind of criminal; only degenerate societies have had them.
Furthermore, since abortion is the defining act of the feminist (along with divorce-rape), it is also indicative of a society far sicker than one with ordinary criminals, because feminism is a psychopathic delusion far worse than that of any rapist or thief. There have always been petty thieves and stupid gangs; even healthy societies have them. But feminism is reserved for only those societies that have embraced mass insanity.
In fact, a major reason the crime rate was so high “before abortion kicked in,” was because our society was feminized to the point of being a society that tolerates abortion. In a good, patriarchal society we would simply string thieves up (even simple thieves, I’m saying, not just murderers and rapists, but petty thieves) and kill them on the spot. The crime rate stays pretty low when every two-bit hoodlum simply gets a one-way ticket to hell.
Another reason the crime rate went down, was the economic improvement that set in at that time, after eight years of pro-growth policies and a tech boom. You speak as if permitting abortion is the only way to get the crime rate down. Obviously, it isn’t. The crime rate is impacted by toleration towards crime, economic depression, the degree to which men remain aggressive, etc. We can get the crime rate down in plenty of moral and rational ways, without ceding the argument to feminists, that they have the right to murder people when they are threatened with inconvenience.
Finally, proof that correlation equals causation. You (and Herr Doktor Mengele) should write an academic paper.
Sounds like the kitten argument above. Not saying abortions shouldn’t be legal but your type of argument is statist in nature and could be used to justify horrific crimes. The taxpayer argument is really an argument against welfare rather than an argument for abortion. And an anti-abortion critic might just use the higher crime rate as a justification for better policing etc.
I think you might enjoy reading Freedom-nomics. John Lott takes Freakonomics to task. In the abortion-crime issue, he shows how Canada also enjoyed a simultaneous drop in crime rate, just like the US, except without legalized abortion. In other words, correlation with Roe v. Wade isn’t the same thing as causation. He even goes as far as to demonstrate that abortion actually exacerbated criminality. Is he right? Hard to say, but he demonstrated the poor reasoning of Freakonomics or at least the ease with which “numbers” can deceive.
http://books.google.com/books?id=4JLPkjRUvM4C&pg=PA126&lpg=PA126&dq=freedomnomics+abortion+crime+rate&source=bl&ots=28xAcLCJ2q&sig=TvEnRvYyZnrsLxYLj92NyHwPrIE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=T0mOU5GDHMilqAbwpYK4Bg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=freedomnomics%20abortion%20crime%20rate&f=false
Debunked a million times
https://www.google.com/search?q=freakonomics+abortion+crime+wrong&oq=freakonomics+abortion+crime+wrong&aqs=chrome..69i57.5232j0j1&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
So then all we have to do to end crime is require all women to have an abortion, in 70 to 80 years we should be 100% crime free !
Refuted people who commit crime do it as a form of lack of empathy/intelligence
I’m makes me so fucking pissed just thinking about it.
Piss on it all. When a man can choose a ‘financial abortion’ (i.e. no child support) prior to 20 weeks I’ll give a support a woman having the choice. Until that day, no abortions unless it’s some malformed monster that won’t survive anyway.
It’s a choice not a child, prior to 20 weeks, right feminists? Hypocritical bints. They ‘deserve’ a choice, but the man gets none except not to have sex. Good for the goose, good for the gander ladies: don’t have sex.
In some ways I agree with her: think how much better a place the world would be if Emily Letts had been aborted!
When a woman willingly opens her legs, willingly has sex, willingly refrains from using birth control and willingly gets pregnant – She has already exercised her right.
THIS is pro-choice. On top of all these choices, if she demands and gets the right to abort the baby as well then she is getting an EXTRA right. Not one, but 2 rights.
These are the same people who tell men “keep it in your pants” when the question of male reproductive rights is raised.
Someone should inform these nitwits that it takes two to tango. When the man did not “keep it in his pants”, the woman “opened her legs” as well.
Yeah, but no one would dare to say that to them because misogyny.
This!
You definitely should be in the front lines fighting for universal funding of women’s contraceptives if you truly stand by your statement.
Contraceptives kill humans just the same. It is unethical.
Besides, even if contraceptives were ethical it does not lead to universal funding of women’s special needs.
Isn’t it interesting that the younger the murder
victim, the less regard we have for “it.?”
A mounth or so ago, it was revealed that a woman
gave birth and killed 7 of her babies, which were
found in shoe boxes around her home. The story
had no “legs.”
When a sexy looking mom murders her toddler child,
that’s when the story becomes noteworthy.
For decades the phrase has been… “My Body, My Choice.”… As if “choice” was something as facile as picking a soda for lunch.
Nowhere has the suggestion ever been, “My Body, My Responsibility.”… Because, to dare to suggest that with freedom of choice comes a responsibility, is to dare to suggest that women are adults. The women of this movement can’t have that perception *and* continue to remain worthy of male charity. So, they have insisted on a madness in society, the madness of giving women the freedom to choose aborting pregnancy, while keeping them innocent of all their choices.
It’s like handing a gun to a small innocent teenager and telling them that they’re not responsible for who they’re pointing it at when they pull the trigger.
I’m pro-choice for the fundamental right to abort women and their abortionists.
It’s incredible how the ‘my body, my choice’ meme only works when applied to killing another human being.
Why can’t it be applied to the draft?
My body, my choice, your money.
The state should not fund choices.
Amen. And by the way Jeremy, I like your comments. Always straight and to the point.
Quote: “There are some good arguments behind the pro-choice position ”
Like perhaps that an unborn child just might be better off dead than to be raised under the evils of feminist society?
Uh no. Being a man in Soviet Russia during the siege of Stalingrad is probably infintely worse.
You mean the siege of Leningrad?
He did say “…ONE of the worst times to be a man”. Emphasis mine.
At least the females of soviet russia were pretty to look at and were more family oriented. Everything across the board in America is turning to shit.
The sickness of the progressive mind is at its most obvious when they try to ask you ‘how can you be against abortion but for the death penalty?’ Equating an unborn foetus with murderers and rapists.
The entire progressive mindset is about dehumanizing and devaluing the individual; what better way to do that than to normalize the capricious taking of life.
I’ll never forget rushing my wife to the emergency room for an ultrasound; at 8 weeks pregnant there were 2 small but very visible heartbeats, who are now my thriving teens.
I also find it funny that progressives want to “raise awareness” and “secure public funding” for absolutely any single problem in history, saving whales, cleaning up beaches, killing African slave lords, you name it and they come up with a publicly funded program that needs everyone’s support and especially their empathy thru awareness raising campaigns– except abortion. The answer is killing when it comes to children who are unwanted and likely to, as progressives say, “bog down the system” in the failing schools jails and unhealthy lifestyles associated with single motherhood. When it comes to abortion, big spending progs strangely suddenly morph into Randian Objectivist type Libertarians, coldly watch-dogging the public coffers and making sure that no money is wasted on unwanted creatures. Truly inhuman; they’d spend more time and money saving whales or turtles than children. (Not that I support public spending on bastards.)
You are against abortion but do not support financial assistance to single mothers? That is not reasonable. Are you pro contraception? I hope so because otherwise this conversation is completely unreasonable. A woman must have some option besides ” close your legs”. We are all men who want to have sex, we need women who are willing, and we need the ability to mitigate unintentional consequences. I am not a fan of condoms, and I am not trying to have kids right now, so the pill should be available. Pulling out and coming on her face is effective but not 100 percent.
Scumbag, actions imply consequences. If you created and undefended, vulnerable human being, you have the obligation to support it, on your own.
Here is how I’d mitigate all your unintentional consequences: hanging, prison, shunning, beating you behind the woodshed, etc. And if your children suffer the consequences of their parents crimes, then that is unfortunate, but necessary to prevent the multiplication of their sufferings by permitting your unintended consequences any tolerance.
Think of it this way: yor lifestyle produces little ticking bombs that randomly go off and kill everyone around them between the ages of about 12 through 65. What should we do with you and your little time bombs? Kill them out of hand? Well, I’d rather kill you than your unborn children, if we’re going to be doing some killing. Your children might also die, but they might also turn out ok.
That was a waste of time.
Thanks for your input!
Lmao why bother. The same people that oppose abortion are also vehemently opposed to funding contraceptives and subsidized child care. What about these children living below the poverty line, pro lifers? Do they matter? Your shitty ass country has the birth mortality rate of fucking Romania? Even the babies these “cold hearted whores” carry to full term are dying! The U.S doesn’t deserve to be considered a western nation. You guy’s don’t even have reasonable maternity leave times. Women literally give birth then go back to work in two weeks. The uterus takes 6-8 weeks to fully recover. A new born infant child shouldn’t be without its mother that early. But I’m sure you guy’s couldn’t give two shits about any of that.
Atlanta Man is an example of the men who allowed the modern folly of feminism, equalitarism and the rest of the bullshit we have had to endure since at least the 18th century.
I do care about poor dumb kids dying from the stupidity of their parents. I just realize that bailing any of them out at any time, especially the parents, only results in MORE poor dumb kids dying from the stupidity. I grew up in the stupidity. I know it first hand. Someone is going to have to pay for the sins. Someone is going to have to eat the dog food in the dumpster. There is no easy transition, but once the transition is made, hopefully in the most ethical manner, balance can be restored, and kids can have 2 parents again, and grow up normal. Some lessons in life require suffering, and sometimes people have to lie in the beds they’ve made before things can get better for themselves and their neighbors.
Atlanta Man does not adopt children so Atlanta Man does not tell women to have kids they don’t want so he does not have to pay indirectly through a welfare state run amok. There fixed that for you.
There are definitely reasonable arguments to make for making birth control available (not saying free/public-funded, but available). Planned pregnancies are always best for the child, always. An unplanned pregnancy is actually the very first risk factor in any individual human’s life path. That being said, the mountain of inexpensive contraceptive options available for women leaves them almost no excuse for ever needing an abortion. Even in cases of rape, morning-after pills should make abortions something that should be extremely rare.
As soon as a woman menstruates she should be given the option of free birth control, it makes common sense. I risk a false equivalence here but it is akin to vaccination, we do it to children before they can speak , we do it for the greater good. When we listen to uninformed emotional arguments ( ie Jenny McCarthy) you end up with a measles outbreak in Manhattan and a Polio outbreak in California.
One of the lowest abortion rates in the world is in Sweden, free birth control is why that is the case.
No, not free. Why should others subsidize her in any way? Isn’t she “strong and independent” ?? Let her pay for her needs like anyone else.
I agree. I believe that abortion should be legal but it should never be trivialized like the crazy woman in this article. There should be mandatory counseling involved and a discussion of other options like adoption. Trivializing it…this is another symptom of how far down society has gone.
I disagree with the mandatory counseling. Once a woman has made her choice to have the procedure she should be able to just do it. There should be counseling available if she wants it, but she should not be obligated to do it.
Any time you have a legislated rule, it opens the potential for abuse. From this perspective, I agree with you that mandatory anything is a bad idea. Such a requirement is too easily abused by the elected executives at the time.
She hates her dad, brothers, nephews and her ancestors.
She is sick.
The whole abortion trend goes hand in hand with society placing more value on career than family for women. A baby at a young age really would fuck up a career path. So the solution was, well, let’s just legalize murder. Now women have abortions like it is nothing; as long as society accepts it, women will too. Women always follow the herd which is why society would be better if it promoted moral behavior instead “freedom”.
Who gets to decide what is moral? I think I will have my freedom, and leave morality to the individual. I have slept around, drank excessively, and lied to women to have sex- these acts would be considered amoral by most people. Thankfully I live in America so morality is not law.
All law is a codification of someone’s morality.
Other people trying to push their morality as law is the cause of most of societies ills. Drug laws, the prohibition , and cannon law did nothing but spread misery. Humans should work on staying out of each other’s personal lives, happiness would grow exponentially.
I agree, however societies always promote behavior like it or not. I’m not suggesting abortion be made illegal, just that it not be promoted as normal and subsidized by the government. I’m mostly attacking the way media and politicians frame the issue. In the modern age the media shapes culture more than anything else and abortion is framed as “feminine health” rather than the decision to end a life. With all the birth control available to women (not to mention the morning after pill) it is astounding waiting 9 weeks to kill a growing person is not only acceptable but totally normalized.
Do you understand English?
ALL LAW: every law in every place at any given time
CODIFICATION: Placing a body of ideas into writing and orderly action
MORALITY: A personal opinion about how something ought to be for yourself and/or others
I will repeat myself: ALL LAW IS A CODIFICATION OF MORALITY; YOU MUST LEGISLATE MORALITY, OR LEGISLATE NOT AT ALL.
Do I need to define legislation as well?
How has legislating morality worked so far English professor?
The morning after pill counts as abortion, it does not prevent fertilization of the egg , it deals with the environment post fertilization. I support subsidies for female contraception, the morning after pill, and abortions to save the mothers life. I tolerate abortion by choice and insurance companies right to provide them, not the state.
Did you know that you are an anarchist? If so, why didn’t you just say that up front?!
Did you know you are derailing intelligent conversation in these comments with your emotional arguments and illogical conclusions?
I practically laid out my statement in syllogism form. All law is codified morality. Therefore all legislation is nothing more than morality. Yet, you fail to recognize my statement for the infallible logic it is. You don’t even attempt to refute it. In fact, you implicitly accepted my statement by asking “Yeah, but where has that gotten us?” Granting my statement: You either have an alternative morality that we should use for legislation, or you are an anarchist that doesn’t believe in laws at all. You have not presented your alternative codification, therefore I assume you are an anarchist, or a retard.
In common law legislating morality is typically limited to the vices or religious mores ( sharia law, cannon law) . Natural law is considered immutable and understood by all at birth ( don’t steal , don’t rape, don’t destroy what is not yours). When I say legislating morality that is what I mean. In my previous comment I mentioned prohibition and the like. Honestly I did not know you were attempting to have any substantive conversation based on the tone of your remarks. Regardless my main point here is go fuck yourself, you are a self righteous dick and you insulted me multiple times in these comments so why should I give a fuck about you or your opinion if you call me names and act like a dick. Also blow me.
Just cruising through some of the comments here, trying to distract myself from work. I can only shake my head at the naivete. To address Atlanta Man, the idea that humans understand rape, theft, destruction of property as inherently off-limits is bullshit. There may be utilitarian purposes to banning these (group cohesion) but otherwise you are doing exactly what Disqusted is saying and legislating morality.
My son was smiling at 12 weeks in the womb. I don’t know why he was smiling, he just was.
Abortion is murder as far as I’m concerned. A smile is not something that occurs to a lifeless mass of tissue. It is a very human ability.
A lot of guys do not realize that even if they despise white knights, they themselves are white knights on some level.
The current scenario that we’re witnessing where the women have all the rights and then some, and can practically force the man to pay for women’s own choices, is not something that magically fell from the sky.
The women themselves whined and bitched relentlessly about it and they were provided it. Women, not just feminists, but women at large.
So who is the real culprit here? The state that caved in to women’s demands or women who demanded and worked their asses off to make it happen?
The closet white knights must be thinking at this moment – Feminists. Blame the feminists, blame the government, blame the white knights, but you can NEVER, ever blame women.
None of them have the fucking balls to call out the FEMALE behaviour. None of them will ever condemn women. It is the fault of every EXCEPT women. Women are innocent little angels who fell from the sky in our lap.
That is why I deliberately add the Ku Klux Klan to the list of white knights, in that context. Thanks, red pill.
Millions of babies are murdered by women.
And for such stupid reasons, too.
30 million abortions are done worldwide annually. That’s the population of a state the size of Pennsylvannia roughly. Selfish, Irresponsible sex is the main reason. Sites like this (and their feminist equivalents) that encourage PUAs and “hooking up” just compound the problem. If ROK encourages men to have frequent one night stands, how about encouraging vasectomies as well.
You fail to see that ROK’s moral nihilism and hedonism are a kind of Cloward-Piven for feminism that only speeds a possible return to sanity. Although I am not a nihilist, I can hang with these scumbags because they’re useful, and merely online, saying things I am free to disagree with, not phased by competing philosophies. Perhaps some day we will be at each other’s throats, but until that day, carry on.
four hundred million abortions since roe v wade.
That means that abortion alone has committed the worst genocide ever committed on the planet. That’s more than world war 2, more than hitler, more than China’s ‘ecological disaster’.
Against the most helpless people in need of protection imaginable… our own children.
Why aren’t people shooting abortion doctors and blowing up planned parenthood facilities?
The fact that we are unwilling to take a stand against the most monstrous villainy ever to exist simply shows that we, as a country, are too morally bankrupt to be worth saving. Sorry, WN’s, but that includes us white people.
This will be unorthodox.
I’m against abortion for French British Dutch Danish German Spanish Swiss Austrian Belgian Polish Hungarian Norse Swede Finn Russ Icelandic etc ethnics. Oh and the Irish.
Every nation in Africa should be given free abortions.
See what I did there? I’m indifferent about China, however the female infanticide is worrisome.
but the brits and irish are ugly.(even though I love redhead green eyed women)
That’s a contradiction.
That’s the Irish/British phenotype.
well celtic phenotype. The english are apperntly germanic
Only in the South East. The main population in England is actually Celt. The British technically refers to the Welsh anyway.
I wonder how the father of Emily’s aborted child felt about the whole spectacle…
Never mind the fact that abortions frequently damage women. Many women, who were at least relatively normal beforehand, develop extreme depression, eating disorders, or become otherwise mentally unstable after having an abortion, because of the extreme guilt they feel. This is documented but rarely publicized. They even have organizations now to help them deal with it. But it’s obviously “cool” and “not a big deal”.
If you watch the video, Letts looks extremely disturbed/unstable (despite all the positive things she has to say). You can see in her eyes that she’s killed some part of her soul with her decision and actions.
Deep down inside, she knows that she killed her own child, and it will haunt her for the rest of her life.
I was going to say the same thing, except it’s kinda still white knighting women to point out the tewwible tewwible suffering of the murderesses.
Not really. It’s not sympathizing with her, it’s pointing out that she has done a horrible thing and is immediately suffering from it.
As far as a country like Canada is concerned, there are 100,000 abortions performed and funded by the gov’t every year.
We also have 250,000 immigrants per year. Many of them come from third world hell-holes where the idea of women’s rights are non-existent.
As a result of these figures we could deduce that for every abortion the gov’t must find one man, and one woman, to come here and have the children we kill off. The future inhabitants of the west will be people far from ‘western’ in their ideas and attitudes. As a result it will destroy the rights of women and drag us back to the stoneage.
Applause!
You get it.
Fool secularists and feminists will have a hard time communicating with their foreign speaking diaper changers in the death bed facilities they will be festering in, come 30-40 years. Perhaps one of my children will get into such an opportune ministry and share the Good News with them before they give up the ghost; treat them real nice before they meet their Maker.
at least the “stoneage” can keep their women in line.
What @AngryWhiteMail fails to realize is the very notion how in a typical Anglo country like Canada (he gave me the impression he’s Canadian in real life), Anglo women are the keepers of sex. Don’t get me started with the root source, Engand, and how it got bad there.
“As far as a country like Canada is concerned, there are 100,000 abortions performed and funded by the gov’t every year.
We also have 250,000 immigrants per year. Many of them come from third world hell-holes where the idea of women’s rights are non-existent.”
Under that logic, Canada gains +150K more people go into Canada and compensate for the low local birth rates (read: low number of Anglo folks, procreating, because of various reasons from having no incentive to do so to financial ruination in Anglo divorce courts). Also, if your talking about “women’s rights, being non-existent”, lack of accountability of Anglo women stands out more in that department.
“As a result of these figures we could deduce that for every
abortion the gov’t must find one man, and one woman, to come here and have the children we kill off. The future inhabitants of the west will
be people far from ‘western’ in their ideas and attitudes. As a result
it will destroy the rights of women and drag us back to the stoneage.”
The first sentence of that paragraph already supports and correlates with the previous point. Moving onto the next point, it’s like you never heard of assimilation, where first-generation locals of immigrant parents are embracing local Anglo customs.
Most seriously, stop putting pussy on the pedestal; that’s how and why even the American racist White Knight group, the Ku Klux Klan, were LYNCHING men of ALL ethnic stocks, at the beck and call of their women. The final sentence of that paragraph, “As a result, it will destroy the rights of women and drag up back to the stoneage (sic)”, is a red herring because as mentioned in another thread, “white women are the most privileged”. Even American non-Anglo feminists naively joined the movement, long after Virginia Woolf and Rebecca Latimer Felton were long gone. Never mind the fact Virginia Woolf was an Anti-Semite and Rebecca Latimer Felton was a LYNCHING advocate, if you still believe in American white women’s rights.
While I’m no fan of the death penalty lynching was an example of peasants removing predators.
The 3,000 or so known lynchings generally appear to have rid towns of despicable characters and dangerous interlopers. The deterent effect on crime was also undeniable.
And yet, lynching was NOT used as punishment for FALSE RAPE ACCUSATIONS, long before the Civil Rights era. This is where it’s justified to call out double standards.
There are in excess of 37,000 black on white rapes a year. Statistically speaking whites rarely rape black Women.
There is no interracial male solidarity in this world or the next.
I’m gonna guess that you are a self obsessed black man.
Fair enough. Of the recorded lynchings we know that under 5,000 took place over a one hundred year period. There were over 5,000 black on black murders in the US last year. Well over. In five years there have been as many murdered/murderers in Detroit.
You dare to talk about double standards? Mob violence is better than the pussified court system. It kept savages in check.
You’re well-aware that rape stats were most commonly between acquaintances, correct? I previously took human sexuality classes, which stated as “being committed by a male acquaintance on a female that the perpetrator knows”, but the stats are US-based. Basically, under YOUR logic, ALL black men are out to shove their penis inside a white woman’s vagina, even if the latter were willing and acquainted with the black man.
Yet another strong evidence why white supremacists ARE white knights; WHIPPED!
Better to have abortion available through the government than an increase in welfare babies.
Dear John,
Is there a substantial ethical difference between mass killing unwanted fetuses, mass killing unwanted infants, and mass killing unwanted fertile adults on welfare? I cannot think of one. If not, perhaps your position would be better stated, “Better to kill anyone asking for welfare than have an increase in welfare spending.”
Yes there is. For starters, I believe your argument is flawed from a false analogy. Killing unwanted infants and unwanted fertile adults on welfare would be terminating the life of a living being that is almost certainly a viable, self-conscious, and self-sustaining human. A fetus is none of those things. Furthermore, anywhere from 10-25% of all confirmed pregnancies end in miscarriages.* In contrast, 10-25% of your demographic groups do not inexplicably expire.
From an economic standpoint, those least capable of providing for children are those most in need of abortions and consequently, are more likely to seek out government assistance. If you get rid of the government programs then I wouldn’t care about abortion but as it stands I want to prevent as many unplanned pregnancies as possible before we turn this country into a real world idiocracy. Abortion is not exclusively an ethical debate and ignoring the economic consequences of political decisions is proving to be disastrous.
*American Pregnancy Association
You just compared adults and children on welfare, defining welfare as a system of hand outs for people largely not capable of living in a self-sustainable viable self-conscious way, to fetuses who are also mostly unable to survive on their own as well. Sounds like you need to rethink your position. Why not just kill them all, John? You have failed to convince me that I should not just kill them all– that there is no ethical difference. Try again? Thanks.
Your logical fallacies are mounting. This time in the form of argument from ignorance. Look up fetal viability, self-sustainability, and self-consciousness. Just because you don’t understand the terms doesn’t invalidate the argument. In fact, it likely enhances my own considering your apparent limitations on the topic.
From where I sit, people on welfare are criminal, obese, stupid, useless, non-viable, infantile, semi-humans living in a state of animal-like stream of consciousness, and when you add their psych meds or “medicinal herbs” and meth/crack/television to the mix, are less human or viable than a fetus. They’re literally being paid to do nothing with their lives by welfare programs. They receive welfare because they literally can’t take care of themselves. I have to pay for them. On top of that, I have to pay for the schools and educational advertisements and awareness campaigns that teach them the most basic things, such as “Don’t leave your kid in the car in the desert while grocery shopping.” These people are viewed by many as a waste. So why not abort them? Is there a scientific threshold defining viability? Let’s hear it, professor. All people are non-viable on a long enough timeline, or in a condition of constant low-level street warfare, which is South Chicago, where I grew up. Unwanted fetuses are non-viable and fair game for the slaughter, you say. Well I say people on welfare are non-viable as well, and fair game. Again, you’ve failed to convince me.
@Disqusted – From where you sit seems like a generalization, given the economy recently I have seen good people on welfare simply because some jobs are either hard to come by or they are temp and not a full-time solution; and I know this for a fact because after I was made redundant I was applying for anything, everything almost everywhere rather than take welfare.
Regarding the welfare individuals you have described – from a purely rationalistic POV they are similar to a foetus, ironically these are the ones who seem to get pregnant the most. a prevailing argument is “for the greater good” wherein a non-established life-form (foetus) is deemed expendable for the greater good given the circumstances they would be raised in (i.e. shitty parents and poor living situation continuing their parents cycle). This argument stops at humans with a consciousness and “life” which is down to an organisms ability to breathe and its organs function and sustain the body without external assistance (e.g. heart beats by itself, brain functions and lungs take in oxygen without a placenta) so it becomes a human rights violation to terminate in contrast to “the greater good”
so the question I have to ask is would you ban abortions because the life-form runs parallel to the “welfare” people you have just described or do you deem it a greater service for the child-to-be to spare it from the cruelties of life that it would encounter by being born in a challenging and unsavoury world?
I don’t really have much of a different opinion than you on welfare recipients. Though I wouldn’t endorse killing them off, I do think they are in most cases suffering consequences of their own decisions more than anything genetically or environmentally inherited. However, the rest of your argument is flawed on a more objective measure. I honestly don’t feel much like deconstructing the logical flaws you commit since it seems you are incapable of actually formulating an argument without including at least one.
Additionally, while you refuse to perform the most rudimentary of research methods, I provided the scientific definition of viability to reinforce how misguided your opinion is.
The potential of the FETUS to survive outside the UTERUS after birth, natural or induced. Fetal viability depends largely on the FETAL ORGAN MATURITY, and environmental conditions.
http://www.reference.md/files/D005/mD005328.html
You’re missing the point. Individual egg cells, sperm cells, developing human being, full human being, they’re all the same and expendable objects to the solipsistic feminists who worship at the alter of “me me me”. The only thing these women understand is shame.
Only if they come from among your folk.
Destroying the Orcs and Morlocks keeps us ahead.
what I dont like is we dont get a choice. If she gets pregnant when she “forgets” her pill. we have no say in the matter but accept her decision. If she wants to abort, we get no say. If she wants to keep it and take your money, we get no say.
their should be fairness in this. Like perhaps an abortion is necessary if 1 of them dont want to be a parent. Or she will gives birth and the one that wants to keep the child can keep it and take care of it by themselves. And they both wanna be parents then say child custody on certain days, child support,move in together,etc.
A pregnancy is a life changing thing and a discussion between the 2 are needed. Not this forced authoritarian thing.
exactly, and in my case I saw the scheme for what it was only AFTER (so stupid me, but I copped it on the chin and soldier on). and to sum up their response it was “its my body, my choice so either love it or leave….but I still want money”
What about the global religious leader who said we should “back off” from the whole abortion issue?
You mean this guy?
http://novusordowatch.org/_Media/sedevacantism-for-dummies.jpeg
I’d like to thank Fr. McGinniss for encouraging young women to shun intercourse until they are ready for motherhood. Because every form of contraception can fail.
True. BC pills are only 92-95% effective. Condoms can be as low as 78%. Having casual sex can lead to your child being aborted or raised by some promiscuous nitwit. If you want to be a player, get a vasectomy.
I got an idea on how to stop abortions. Stop child support. Back in the day when support wasnt guaranteed, women made smarter choices. We keep throwing birth control out there,but it aint idiot proof. Cause theyll forget or” think its just one time im not using it”. Or become so nonchalant about sex that theyll get riskier about it.
Plus they have a fail rate. Like condoms are only 95-98% effective and the pill is like what 80-90%(correct me if im wrong)? Thats scary that the most effective has a 1 in 50 chance while the most popular can be like 1 in 5.
Plus the pill fucks up your health, my grandma’s brothers wife, died of cancer taking those.
“Less than 1 out of 100 women will get pregnant each year if they always take the pill each day as directed.”
“About 9 out of 100 women will get pregnant each year if theydon’t always take the pill each day as directed.”
-Planned Parenthood
so .5% to 9% fail rate depending how smart she is. Got man
thanx
I convinced and paid for 2 abortions for the same psycho ex-girlfriend — the second of which was a clear premeditated pregnancy trap when it was obvious I was going to drop her like the hot potato (head) she was. Although that crazy period in my life was over 15 years ago, I still think of the ramifications from time to time. It bothers me more as I get older. The bottom line is that I convinced a woman to end the life of 2 developing human beings. Granted, they might not have had a soul yet, or whatever you want to call that true immortal “spark of life,” but the physical life-forms were snuffed out via some barbaric method by a doctor who chose to do that sort of work for a paycheck.
Sitting in the waiting room, pretending to read a stupid mag, and stealing looks of all the women / girls / moms / daughters was excruciating. And seeing the face on my psycho ex as she first emerged from the operating area was ghastly and heart breaking, even though I had grown to loath that woman over the prior 6 months. I’ll never forget that look of disassociated shock mixed w/ shame, mixed w/ disgust, and maybe even some fear for what she had done (for the second time…). She was certainly no godly woman, but I think she realized the wrath (karma) that she’ll receive at some later time. I suspect I’ll receive some also. Not something to take lightly, or film and put on Youtube, for sure. Me thinks Emily Letts is likely a Jew, the same tribe from which our abortion doctor came from.
Wow, so you got roped into a sham pregnancy once with someone who was unworthy to be a mother, and then you STILL put your dick back in crazy? Perhaps you could do with an injection of a bit of the infamous intelligence of the “tribe” which you deride.
when you are ready for sex, you better make sure your wallet is fat. If you cant afford an abortion or contraceptives, thats pretty good indicator you shouldnt be fucking. Because they have their fail rates too.
And guys dont trust your woman about her cycle, or her being on the pill. They are like kids they just do what they feel like, you have to be on it…..hell even my dad had to do this before I was born cause they had no money at the time.
My ex-brother-in-law’s second wife stopped taking BC pills when they were dating. “Honey, I’m PREGNANT.” — “Well, guess we’d better get married, then.”
Whatta paira maroons.
totally agree. You cant trust them with that type of power. Hell feminists are trying to stop the sales of male birth control pills, because it takes power from them.
Dont what it is with women, like I get the idea youre using the baby as a way to secure commitment. But I dont understand how you can be careless and get pregnant. Guys if that was us wed treat it like fire.
whether its a ONS or your wife, you got to remind her to take her pill. Especially when you 2 are not ready.
As a general rule make sure you keep track of the cycle. Anywhere between 8-14 days after the onset of period is dangerous. Basically have sex after the period if it ends on day 3-5.
Anytime after day 18 is basically safe. Unless she ovulates late.
Most women ovulate around 14 days.
Best time to fuck a broad is when she’s PMS. At least as far as avoiding pregnancy.
But they are most interested when they are ovulating, in my experience.
Eye of the needle brother!
OK, I watched the video. A couple observations:
1. She is a few bricks shy of a chimney. Probably best that she does not assume responsibility for raising a child to adulthood at this time.
2. Surprised that they chose a surgical abortion, which usually isn’t needed till the third month. But then she seemed pretty flaky so maybe she didn’t know how long she was pregnant.
It is the taking of human life for the sake of convenience and it shows that a lot of women are basically selfish cunts who will happily kill their kid so as not to interrupt their life on the cock carousel. Evil fucking cunt – I hope she gets AIDS.
Liberals oppose executing murderers, but are perfectly okay with destroying babies for the crime of potentially being inconvenient.
Wow, sums it up nicely. That is really what abortions are all about – a potential inconvenience that would fuck up an “empowered woman’s” lifestyle.
Abortion makes me so fucking angry. It’s so easy to kill something that’s weaker than you and defenseless. If men in general had this kind of philosophy the world would be a much different place. I can understand if the pregnancy was life threatening, but to have an abortion just because you made a mistake, I think that’s pretty close to the definition of evil.
From this day forth I’m not having anything to do with anyone who’s had an abortion or is “pro-choice”…
I will miss our budding friendship…..
Remember the old tall tale about Chinese eating fetuses? I was so disappointed it wasn’t true. I thought a fetus would be an interesting delicacy. Maybe in the future we’ll be feasting on newborns for Thanksgiving; one can only hope. I really don’t understand people who are against abortion because everyone is so self serving. Do you care about people you ignore in real life? I don’t think so.
wow. A pragmatic, reasonable view on abortion. Excellent article.
In an ideal situation, promiscuous women would be jailed or flogged, and executed for having abortions. The last thing we need hanging around, are the types of gals who would rather murder someone than be inconvenienced… and not just “someone,” but their own child, the fruit of their own choices, for which they are refusing to take responsibility. Abortion is the feminist sacrament, because it encapsulates all of their doctrines simultaneously: pragmatism (do what “works” for you, without any other moral consideration), entitlement (your convenience is your top priority), narcissism (you go girl!), a refusal to take responsibility for their very own mistakes, eschewing all accountability and all consequences, irrationality (my body my choice! but hey, you: put down that 32oz soda!), contempt for others, a willingness to violate others’ rights in the name of new-found “rights” that cater to the above, and finally, nihilism, the destruction of the family, rejection of a woman’s true role in society and the ironic refusal to participate in THE defining experience of womanhood, while pursuing an affectation of “femininity” in superficial ways. These are the defining traits of women and modern, effeminized men (save for the last one).
In an ideal situation, we would recognize that the kind of gal who will abort her child, is the kind of gal who should be thrown off a mountain. Ideally from a precipice in plain view of the city. The girls in town should be pushed to the front of the crowd and made to watch most intently. Yes, give the guilty a chance to repent and receive last rites, etc. But make it clear that the crime will be punished.
That is one approach , I don’t agree, but all opinions are welcome. This is not Salon.com after all……
Exactly, man. Thanks for disagreeing.
What’s Executioner pay these days, anyways? Eh, who cares. It’d be good enough reward knowing that justice is being done, and millions are being saved from the stupid childishness of women.
Where were all these pro-lifers when Christian McQueen was talking about his mistresses and his pre-arrangements for them to get abortions should they every become pregnant?
Hypocrites.
This article is gold.
Meh, I’ve got no problem with women like that aborting for frivolous reasons. They should just be sterilized as well.
Hmm not sure how I feel about this one. because im on the side of the men who have been roped into having kids (by things like tampered condoms and refusing to take things like morning-after pills when there was a singular event where a child could be conceived).
For me instead of focusing on abortion I would wholly support an actual male contraceptive that WAS NOT condoms or having a vasectomy. because seriously guys are at a disadvantage and all you need is one accident and a woman who says “my body my choice” and you are in for life. love my kids to death what I don’t love is how it happened especially the shitstorm whirlwind of “how dare I even think of such a thing”
I like this blog. It calls a spade a spade. Argue all you want about a “right to choose” for women, which is something that I think is debatable and both sides have good points. But, an abortion ends what will be, other then what might be a miscarriage induced naturally by the human body, a flesh and blood living human being. Society has no reason to “celebrate” or even publicize such a thing even if it is a legal medical procedure. If it happens then that is fine if it is legal. No need to put it on YouTube. We still have some sort of self respect and dignity for human life, right? Well…maybe not.
When I was younger in high school, I didn’t think abortion was such a big deal. Never got a girl pregnant, thank God, so never had to face it.
Fast forward 26 years later, we had difficulty having a child. Went through a failed IVF, tried for a second time, but went with inter – uterine injection and was successful. Now have a healthy boy. The joy and wonder watching him grow and can not now ever imagine aborting a baby. Looks like I’ve matured and realized how horrible abortion is. How sick someone is taking pleasure in doing it and sharing it on the internet. It is as sick as the beheading videos by Al Qaeda a few years back.
The part that gets to em is when they kill late abortions that are managing to survive. Child remved from the womb, holding on, a child that would be receiving all the medical care in the world to keep it alive if it were in a birthing ward. The only difference between the aborted child that is crushed or cut apart and the birthed child that is protected and supported is what the mother says. If a woman were to decide to kill a premature baby postpartum she’d be a monster. But babies like tthat are killed every day.
Fuck off or get your facts straight. It’s something like 1 or 2 of ALL abortions are late term abortions.
Actually, get your facts straight. I was talking about preemies. http://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/preterm-labor-prolonged http://preemies.about.com/od/readersstories/a/World-S-Smallest-Preemies.htm
A premature baby is given the right to life because it was born in a hospital. An aborted baby is not because it was removed at the mother’s will.
I sense a conservative bent in your articles recently. The next Thomas Sowell maybe lol?
Anyways it’s hard to disagree with anything here. I knew a girl who had 5 abortions and she wasn’t even 30. I can’t rationally explain it right now, but I got an immediate repulsive reaction after finding out about that.
I don’t understand why there isn’t more violence against abortionists. I guess all that “love thy neighbor” has softened the fundies too much to deal with the problem.
Many of the women involved deeply in the third Reich viewed the extermination of undesirables as sexual erotic as well. The power to destroy, to kill, without anyone to stop you has always been a heady commodity. Nature kills routinely as animals, plants, and insects have no moral compass. People are born with one though and it requires a whole lot of concentrated lies from an early age to silence that guilty voice, to become in essence, an animal. Mere flesh with anything holy completely removed.
Why is murder in most cases wrong? You are terminating everything that person and *what they could be and all future beings they could make*. Sometimes the weight of a persons actions demands their destruction – we kill a murderer because letting him go would mean many others being killed. It is a weighing action.
What evil has Emily Letts baby committed to have its life cut short? Inconvenience to a woman. That is this child’s crime. Pride, the first sin. IN hell Emily you will not find the inhabitants so amendable to not offending or inconveniencing you, but you don’t believe that. You will though, in time.
Don’t forget the Roman games either.
There is a campaign in Britain to treat women who have had abortions “nicer”. While I do believe abortions should be legal I don’t see that as carte blanche for getting pregnant and simply “changing your mind”. Its interesting but I dated a chick who confided in me that she had previously had an abortion. Along with other behaviours it painted a picture of a rather distasteful woman. And the fact is, other than rape etc. there is rarely a good reason for an abortion and most women, regardless of their circumstances (single teenager, etc.) don’t have them.
The worst example I had heard was a “professional” woman, Indian, “happily” married to an Indian man who aborted the child without her husband’s knowledge because she wanted to focus on her career. It utterly destroyed her marriage, shamed her and I have to say, I wanted nothing to do with her after that. She was a beautiful woman and I found her utterly disgusting.
I agree with this comment. One can think that abortion should be fully legal because it is in the best interest of society while still not condoning the selfish female behavior that often leads to it. This is a subtlety that it seems many of the commenters here can’t grasp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect
if a woman doesn’t feel like taking care of the kid, then she’s best equipped to terminate it….. before it turns into another hoodlum…. we don’t really need more humans, what we need is more intelligent, well educated humans…. so any termination is a good termination….
I wonder if abortion was as common in 1961 would there be a President Obama today ?
he was born in Africa silly
“we don’t really need more humans”
The flaw in your argument is that abortion kills existing humans before they are born. Abortion does not the prevent there being more humans that we really don’t need. Contraception and celibacy accomplish that. Abortion just prevents existing human beings continuing to live, preventing them from reaching adulthood and becoming parents themselves.
“what we need is more intelligent, well educated humans…. so any termination is a good termination…”
It would be far more efficient, to wait a few years, and then to kill those children who don’t do well in school.
I agree that abortion is a nasty and serious thing. However I really don’t want to be a father. Ever. If I somehow get a girl pregnant then abortion is the only option.
Then you could just get a vasectomy !
By Week n°8 the foetus is fully formed with hand, ears, nose and it feels pain…it is scraped in pieces during the abortion…it’s just sick and even an agnostic can recognize these facts…
Men have a huge responsability in this too but the way women act is digusting…Me me me “what if i’m 15 and been raped by my serial killer of a cousin?” when it’s mostly weak minded bitches who don’t want to ruin good features they don’t have and continue their unfulfiling empty lives as potential cum dumpsters…
And mainstream media won’t put forward the girls who did it and commit suicide or get depressed through their whole lives…
the message is: life ain’t worth shit
A lot of strange comments here.
You have not made the case for abortion being illegal if all you have done is ripped apart a strawman idiotic progressive liberal viewpoint.
Are feminists incredible hypocrites whose opinions on everything, including abortion, are ridiculous? Yes. Does that mean anything when it comes to whether abortion should be illegal? No.
I believe that abortion should be legal because it is the lesser of two evils. The greater evil is forcing unworthy single moms to give birth to and raise unwanted children, who are then more likely than other children to become a burden to society in terms of crime and dependency. That is the argument for abortion that you should be taking on, if you are against it.
Nothing in the article says anything about making abortion illegal. It says that abortion is not to be taken lightly.
Who is strawmanning whom?
I wasn’t talking about the article – I was talking about peoples’ comments in the comment section. Geez, it is right up there in the first line of my comment.
“The greater evil is forcing … moms to give birth to … That is the argument for abortion …”
The flaw in the argument is in the deceptive language used. Refraining from killing a human being before his or her birth, does not equate to “forcing” the child’s mother to “give birth”.
I don’t consider abortion to be necessarily a bad thing, and the more I think of it I can be good. Although I think the real question here should be financial, maybe not in the US, but here in Canada, and in other countries where government will pay for your abortion that’s my concern. Abortion is for when you make a mistake, broken condoms or you been raped. That should be the only time you can opt for abortion, not as a way out of maternity because of your little whore-ish lifestyle.
Abortion or lifetime financial slavery through child support, and out-of-wedlock rates approaching 50%, pick your poison.
There is an incredible amount of bias to Ms. Letts’ video. Remember, Ms. Letts’ job “involves encouraging women to have abortions”.
Abortion should not be painted as a positive experience to anyone considering it. Even if you don’t want the kid, you will have some trauma from the experience for the rest of your life.
My personal take is that it is far more traumatic to pay child support for a good chunk of your life.
i know the best idea for solving abortion that i heard at Mises.org “when a woman becomes pregnant and wants an abortion she goes to the abortion clinic the doctor plays a lotto and puts 2 names in the basket one for the mother one for the child one (a third if the father is participating in this abortion by paying or helping out in any way) and whichever name is pulled out of the lotto is the one who dies no exceptions.
i know the best idea for solving abortion that i heard at Mises.org “when a woman becomes pregnant and wants an abortion she goes to the abortion clinic the doctor plays a lotto and puts 2 names in the basket one for the mother one for the child one (a third if the father is participating in this abortion by paying or helping out in any way) and whichever name is pulled out of the lotto is the one who dies no exceptions.
How do you think a woman who aborts her own flesh and blood is going to treat you after 5 years of marriage and the commensurate daily grudges/boredom?
Once she’s broken that barrier it is much, much easier to treat others as callous as she did her own kind.
Think about it.
I always reckoned the world would be a better place, were it not for silly prohibitions on fourth and later trimester abortion of progressives. It’s not like they’re viable without a host body of less-degenerates to leech off anyway.
“Abortion is a necessary evil at best, an option to be chosen in the face of very poor alternatives that can be avoided in no other way.”
Well said. Excellent article.
” There are some good arguments behind the pro-choice position and I understand them.”
I have never heard any of these “good arguments” in favour of decriminalising abortion. What are they?
First of all, “decriminalising”? Bro it’s legal in all 50 states. Is it frowned upon in some more than others? Yes. Yes it is. And are there restrictions? Yep. But it is legal. Secondly, what if the girl was raped? That’s one very prevalent argument. I’m very very very pro choice, but only because I belive in women’s rights. Also, what if that woman is a single parent, and she makes 25k a year? That’s not alot, and divide it by two with the arrival of a baby and it’s even less. It would be selfish to keep a baby a love through hell just so you don’t hurt your moral compass. Also, if your child will be born with defects or a genetic disease, why give him a taste of life just to take it from him? Wouldn’t it be better never to feel that pain altogether? My point is there are arguments.
“My point is there are arguments.”
Then make some arguments.
“Also, if your child will be born with defects or a genetic disease, why give him a taste of life just to take it from him? Wouldn’t it be better never to feel that pain altogether?”
Who exactly gets to decide the answer to these questions?
You destroy your own point when you refer to it as “terminate a pregnancy”. The whole point is that it is a human person, a human life, and inconvenience is not a capital crime.
Some startling facts –
– According to 2004 U.S. Census Bureau data, the proportion of childless women 15 to 44 years old was 44.6 percent, up from 35 percent in 1976.
– Higher income predicted childlessness
– The 2004 Census Bureau data showed nearly half of women with annual incomes over $100,000 are childless.
en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Childfree
So are the women childless because they make over $100,000, or are they making over $100,000 because they’re childless ?
LOL, straight men.
You don’t want women to have abortions? You don’t want to pay child support?
Then don’t fuck them. Women don’t impregnate themselves.
I am reluctantly “pro choice” I guess. Pro Life people need to realize that the supreme court gave abortion a constitutional mandate and therefore it is damn near “written in stone” 10 commandment style. You cannot make abortion illegal. It is useless to try. I do think abortion should be regulated. Late term abortions are for sure infanticide. Routinely preemies are saved from about 24 weeks so this could be the cutoff for abortions. Have medical science determine a period of viability e.g say 20 to 24 weeks and NO abortions thereafter. Women need to realize that after a certain time during their pregnancy it becomes a human rights issue. The human rights of the neo/proto human growing inside them…
“after a certain time during … pregnancy it becomes a human rights issue”
Why isn’t it a human rights issue, right from the beginning of the new human’s life?
“There are some good arguments behind the pro-choice position and I understand them.”
No there aren’t.
This is disgusting. Just when I thought these western whores couldn’t sink any lower.
Gentlemen, this is a prime example of the selfishness exhibited by these western women- a trait that makes them unsuitable for marriage.
The whore is disgusting. The sad thing is some beta mangina will probably stuff wife her. Sad.
Woah, I mean what the fuck men?
First you say how terrible child support is and how women can ruin the lives of men with it. Then you say that abortion is wrong just because a woman with questionable morale made a video about it.
Think how these modern women will cheat on you and say it’s your child and because you’re not pro-choice, you are supporting an another man’s child.
Shame on you Christian conservative anti-abortionists.
No, a fetus is the POTENTIAL for human life, just like eggs and sperm are. Do you really think an embryo or fetus looks like that picture of a newborn, feels pain or is in any way sentient? What the hell, you want to “kill cunts” (yes, I’ve seen that on this site), but a collection of non-sentient cells gets you all up in arms? Your heads are messed up.
“No, a fetus is the POTENTIAL for human life, just like eggs and sperm are.”
When you have learnt the relevant biology, you will be able to discuss the bio-ethics. It’s no good just making up your own pseudo-scientific myths, and expecting not to be challenged.
Before 8 weeks, a fetus isn’t even a fetus. It’s an embryo. And it doesn’t feel pain and isn’t any more important than the skin cells on your arms. “But it has the potential to make life!” Yes, it does, but several hundred eggs and several billion sperm die in your lifetime. Those have potential too.
Why is anyone less “important” at the beginning of his or her life than at any other time, when it comes to making a homicide victim of him or her? Nobody is saying “But it has the potential to make life!” There isn’t any argument about whether a human is *alive* or not before he or she is born, at the end of his or her gestation. You recognise the need to marshall an argument as to why killing somebody before birth is OK, but leaving it until after birth to kill the same individual is not. But you haven’t actually marshalled such an argument, have you?
Her comments are just fucking disturbing. This doesn’t sound so much as a feminist promotion, but more like a sociopathic one.
this article is complete bull shit in tandem to “Elliot Rogers is the death of us” article. PLEASE yes its pro-choice thats desensitizing society to death. This website is a train wreck and I can’t look away
I’m genuinely surprised no one has said anything about how they should check the gender before aborting. That aborting a male fetus should be illegal, and aborting a female fetus (especially if the parents aren’t very good looking) should be applauded.
That’s how twisted, sexist and fucked in the head all of you assholes are – I’m GENUINELY SURPRISED.
This is pure propaganda. Why don’t you fact check before you post these articles and try to interpret these videos? I mean, jeez, should you be faulted for taking antibiotics to kill off a bacterial illness? Technically, the bacteria is alive and fulfills all of the requirements of being alive / “living” if you refer to scientific definition of something being alive. I’m not suggesting that a fetus is a bacteria at all (so please don’t try to twist my words, at least develop a valid argument), but if you want to get specific in regards to what is ‘living’ or not, don’t be such a hypocrite.
I think abort should be allowed only in cases of rape (I mean, real rape, not fabricated feminist accusations).
Well,pro-lifers are easy to forget that women will perform the abortion anyhow.If it were illegal,all youre doing is funding rogue doctors(or straight up criminals) and increasing the possibility of women killing a well formed 5 month old child.How about we all meet in the middle,where women have to perform the abortion that is payed for BY HER,under tolerable time frame(2 months tops)? Just stop making shitty women pregnant,that outta help with abortion rate,too.This “put it up for adoption” nonsense is clearly thought of by a person that never grow up in a foster care.