Twenty Seconds of Film That Will Change the Country

[jsbhike]

All life is sacred




Every. Last. One.



Abortion is morally wrong and all babies must be born regardless of environment and/or economic status




So keep voting Republican and paying your taxes. A woman has a duty to bear a child regardless of her means

You left out the elites that make sure their intended victims don't shoot them in the face.

[TMS951]

Ok, with that point of view, should we just kill old people that nobody cares for anymore? How about some of the mentally challenged and homeless? Some of their families don't care for them either. Not buying it. Like an ealrier post mentioned, we shouldn't be at the abortion phase to begin with. That is the real problem. People tend to be more careless, when they have a "way out". It is human nature.

We’re not killing anyone. They are doing it them selves, or to your own unborn child.

Maybe the sick should be allowed to commit suicide. I don’t have a problem there. It is illegal, which is unfortunate.

In some cultures, eskimos being one, suicide of the elderly was very respected. When the elderly were to sick and weak they would walk off into the abyss of the great north and perish, for the good of their tribe. They had spent their time and done their part. I respect that.

You can have less mentally handicapped through abortion. Almost no one in Iceland has Down’s syndrome. Guess how that came to be.

I’m not suggesting killing people. That’s wrong to me. Letting people die? Well that’s nature, or gods work, what ever your belief system is. Personally I don’t see the utility in trying to keep some one here as long as possible if they are not going to be missed.

Let’s take famine some 3rd world country. We can keep feeding them, or the population can settle to a level that there are natural resources to support. Or we can keep feeding them, and never fix the problem by perpetually treating the symptom.

It’s dark I know, but it’s a cold world and nature is cruel. That cruelty does however serve the fittest to their benefit as it removes competition for resources by eliminating the weak.

[Adrenaline_6]

We’re not killing anyone. They are doing it them selves, or to your own unborn child.

Maybe the sick should be allowed to commit suicide. I don’t have a problem there. It is illegal, which is unfortunate.

In some cultures, eskimos being one, suicide of the elderly was very respected. When the elderly were to sick and weak they would walk off into the abyss of the great north and perish, for the good of their tribe. They had spent their time and done their part. I respect that.

You can have less mentally handicapped through abortion. Almost no one in Iceland has Down’s syndrome. Guess how that came to be.

I’m not suggesting killing people. That’s wrong to me. Letting people die? Well that’s nature, or gods work, what ever your belief system is. Personally I don’t see the utility in trying to keep some one here as long as possible if they are not going to be missed.

Let’s take famine some 3rd world country. We can keep feeding them, or the population can settle to a level that there are natural resources to support. Or we can keep feeding them, and never fix the problem by perpetually treating the symptom.

It’s dark I know, but it’s a cold world and nature is cruel. That cruelty does however serve the fittest to their benefit as it removes competition for resources by eliminating the weak.

I get what you are saying, but what it boils down to is you are allowing people to kill an innocent person that has no say in the matter. They aren't choosing anything. Would you allow a person that no longer wants to care for their elderly parents kill their parents? Your still not killing anybody, they are doing it to themsleves.

[26 Inf]

You seriously can't see the sarcasm in my posts? The entire purpose of making those outlandish statements was to show how ridiculous the pro abortion argument is when the basis is that it's okay to terminate life because that life is an inconvenience to others.

Sorry, I'm not a bright boy.

[26 Inf]

We’re not killing anyone. They are doing it them selves, or to your own unborn child.

Maybe the sick should be allowed to commit suicide. I don’t have a problem there. It is illegal, which is unfortunate.

In some cultures, eskimos being one, suicide of the elderly was very respected. When the elderly were to sick and weak they would walk off into the abyss of the great north and perish, for the good of their tribe. They had spent their time and done their part. I respect that.

You can have less mentally handicapped through abortion. Almost no one in Iceland has Down’s syndrome. Guess how that came to be.

I’m not suggesting killing people. That’s wrong to me. Letting people die? Well that’s nature, or gods work, what ever your belief system is. Personally I don’t see the utility in trying to keep some one here as long as possible if they are not going to be missed.

Let’s take famine some 3rd world country. We can keep feeding them, or the population can settle to a level that there are natural resources to support. Or we can keep feeding them, and never fix the problem by perpetually treating the symptom.

It’s dark I know, but it’s a cold world and nature is cruel. That cruelty does however serve the fittest to their benefit as it removes competition for resources by eliminating the weak.

As a member of a group that often espouses 'inalienable rights' you seemingly forgot this: We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—

It amuses me to see folks, many with no children, and many who are unmarried, argue about such things.

[26 Inf]

This thread is fascinating to me because we as a forum really have a diverse view on this topic. Many other topics the forum is just an echo chamber.

It’s a tricky one. I even fall on different lines here. Recently in a debate with my batshit crazy lib step mother I did some research.

Interestingly like 90% of abortions are quite early on, like 100 a year are third term. Morally I’d put first trimester chemical abortion on the lines of shop lifting.

I’m against abortion in second trimester not for medical reasons. Real ones do exist in my mind.

I’m all out against third trimester abortions. My research showed no doctor can state a medical reason for third trimester abortion, there just are not any. Either the issue is seen second trimester, or the baby can be delivered early.

My wife and I did not ‘plan’ our first child or the second she pregnant with now. But you know what we knew what we were doing. We knew our birth control methods were marginal. We never considered her taking an abortion pill. The idea was disgusting to us. It was our responsibility. After this child we’ll practivce real birth control. I think the wife will get her tubes tied. This is a little unfair as we are married and love our son and are so excited about our next child.

Moral of the story is emasculate conception is for fiction books. There is no mystery how you get pregnant.

Immaculate - your spell check screwed up. I would also appreciate that you not make off hand denigrating references to the Bible. 'Immaculate conception is for the Bible' would have worked.

I think the wife will get her tubes tied. Why? Vasectomy is less invasive, and cheaper. Plus, you can sit up and watch if you are tough enough.

Read the crap you posted here and in later posts, reflect upon it and then see if you can draw parallels to world history (trying hard not to use the Nazi word )

[Hmac]

I think the wife will get her tubes tied. Why? Vasectomy is less invasive, and cheaper. Plus, you can sit up and watch if you are tough enough.

Read the crap you posted here and in later posts, reflect upon it and then see if you can draw parallels to world history (trying hard not to use the Nazi word )

Probably need a little thread drift out of the realm of supercilious self-righteousness, so I’ll say that, having done about a thousand of each, tubal wins hand-down over vasectomy from a standpoint of pain, complications, and return to work. The only reason to get a vasectomy is if your wife doesn’t want the tubal. Most do.

[Doc Safari]

Vasectomies are sooooooo 1970's.

[Whiskey_Bravo]

Probably need a little thread drift out of the realm of supercilious self-righteousness, so I’ll say that, having done about a thousand of each, tubal wins hand-down over vasectomy from a standpoint of pain, complications, and return to work. The only reason to get a vasectomy is if your wife doesn’t want the tubal. Most do.

Just from personal experience the vasectomy was not nearly as painless and easy as they made it out to be so my sample of one will concur.

[mark5pt56]

And we criticize politicians for never accomplishing anything. I believe this thread has run it's course.