Emily Letts abortion video

[The Fascist American Empire]

I like how people can be so stupid as to legitimately think that "If everybody else is doing it I should too!" I mean seriously? If you are that oriented around what others do or think you need HELP!

It's a good thing that no one here thinks that, then.

Honestly I've seen kindergartners with more common sense! I often finding myself wondering why must there idiot race be allowed to thrive like this? More people to collect the garbage and clean the toilets of those with brains I guess.

[The Flood]

You do know that anyone who cares too can look back at your quotes and see through the bullshit and the lies in this post, right?

Dude, he's obviously distinguishing between a fetus and a human being. He believe the government has the right to choose whether a fetus lives or dies. He doesn't believe it has the right to arbitrarily choose whether or not a human being lives or dies.
It's not complicated.

What you just said is completely contradictory. If he believes the government has the authority to choose whether a fetus lives or dies, then he believes it has the right to choose whether human beings live or die because a fetus is a human.

[Korouse]

It's a good thing that no one here thinks that, then.

Honestly I've seen kindergartners with more common sense! I often finding myself wondering why must there idiot race be allowed to thrive like this? More people to collect the garbage and clean the toilets of those with brains I guess.

Oh God, my eyes! I strained them too much...

[Kelinfort]

One final reiteration of my argument, seeing as though the pro lifers have all but ignored it:

My primary argument for the right to choice, abortion, and bodily autonomy is this: abortion rates would not decline if it were illegal, it is estimated before Roe v Wade that between 200,000 to 1.2 million abortions occurred, with a much higher rate of women dying. As a male, and I continue to say this, I hope to never and will always do my utmost never to put a women in a situation where she has to choose or where I influence her decision.

Really? No rebuttal?

[Mavorpen]

It's a good thing that no one here thinks that, then.

Honestly I've seen kindergartners with more common sense! I often finding myself wondering why must there idiot race be allowed to thrive like this? More people to collect the garbage and clean the toilets of those with brains I guess.

Are you just talking to yourself now...?

[The Fascist American Empire]

Honestly I've seen kindergartners with more common sense! I often finding myself wondering why must there idiot race be allowed to thrive like this? More people to collect the garbage and clean the toilets of those with brains I guess.

Oh God, my eyes! I strained them too much...

Just hit the quote button, then you see normal sized text.

[The Flood]

I've read about half of this thread recently, and I was actually moved to tears once, listening to a tragic story of a user that was raped and made the choice to get an abortion and then to hear others say that she was wrong to do so.
I think abortion is something that should not be taken lightly, and it is something that I as a male will never be able to understand. However, if the boyfriend/girlfriend or husband/wife or fling/fling are together or are on good terms I feel like the man should at least have some say on what happens, though it is ultimately the female's choice at the end of the day.
Having a child is a big deal and can lead to a plethora of issues, and if there is no reason to believe that the child will have a good life or the life that you feel that child deserves, then there is no reason to keep it. Do what is best for you and the potential child. Abortion also however isn't something that you just do without giving deep thought to it.

Did you really just say that being dead can be what is best for a child? Absolute absurdity. Death is never, ever the answer.

[The Fascist American Empire]

One final reiteration of my argument, seeing as though the pro lifers have all but ignored it:

Really? No rebuttal?

Here's a suggestion. Why not just take them and put them in either A) surrogates, or B) a growth chamber. Or, even though all sides will be disgusted, C) use them in experiments to see how well genes can be manipulated to see how we can advance our own evolution (i.e. stop the hearts from fusing in the latter part of the pregnancy to create a race of stronger, smarter, and faster human beings).

[Kelinfort]

Really? No rebuttal?

Here's a suggestion. Why not just take them and put them in either A) surrogates, or B) a growth chamber. Or, even though all sides will be disgusted, C) use them in experiments to see how well genes can be manipulated to see how we can advance our own evolution.

Uh, most of those aren't feasible, the second one only if it's third trimester.

[The Fascist American Empire]

Here's a suggestion. Why not just take them and put them in either A) surrogates, or B) a growth chamber. Or, even though all sides will be disgusted, C) use them in experiments to see how well genes can be manipulated to see how we can advance our own evolution.

Uh, most of those aren't feasible, the second one only if it's third trimester.

Really? Surrogates aren't feasible? Tell that to all the surrogate mothers or women/cloned animals who have used them.

[Korouse]

Why not just have no babies at all. Grow the embryo in a chamber, inject it with things, and make the perfect multi-cultural master race to rule over whites, blacks, reds, yellows, and everything else!

That's racism AND abortion in one go.

[The Flood]

Umm. Why post it on YOUTUBE?! "I'll brutally rip apart my baby and get famous for a month or three," is that what the world has devolved into?

As has been said repeatedly in this thread, not a baby, and she's an abortion counselor presenting a more positive image of the procedure so publishing her video is a way of doing her job.

There is no positive image to killing an innocent child.

And you will not be telling me a fetus is not a child again, you don't get to make up your own definitions to fit your pro-choice agenda.

"noun: child; plural noun: children

a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority."

This definition clearly encompasses the unborn.

[Kelinfort]

Uh, most of those aren't feasible, the second one only if it's third trimester.

Really? Surrogates aren't feasible? Tell that to all the surrogate mothers or women/cloned animals who have used them.

Ok, how are you going to take an attached embryo already in utero, then transplant it into another woman, ensure development of an umbilical cord, proper growth and deliver, all while keeping cost down? Surrogates don't develop an embryo in another body before transfer.

[Kelinfort]

Why not just have no babies at all. Grow the embryo in a chamber, inject it with things, and make the perfect multi-cultural master race to rule over whites, blacks, reds, yellows, and everything else!

That's racism AND abortion in one go.

That's sterilisation. Not abortion.

[Mavorpen]

"noun: child; plural noun: children

a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority."

This definition clearly encompasses the unborn.

No it doesn't. The definition of "child" rests with the assumption that it's born. This is why the biological definition is more useful.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Uh, most of those aren't feasible, the second one only if it's third trimester.

Really? Surrogates aren't feasible? Tell that to all the surrogate mothers or women/cloned animals who have used them.

Lol surrogates are feasible in the zygote/blastocyst state, i.e. before a woman knows she is pregnant. Surrogates happen when a woman is either impregnated by someone with the intention of giving the baby to another person or couple, or when someone else's egg and sperm are combined in a lab, and then transplanted. Our technology cannot currently take an embryo or fetus (i.e. when a woman knows she is pregnant) and put it into another person.

[The Fascist American Empire]

Really? Surrogates aren't feasible? Tell that to all the surrogate mothers or women/cloned animals who have used them.

Lol surrogates are feasible in the zygote/blastocyst state, i.e. before a woman knows she is pregnant. Surrogates happen when a woman is either impregnated by someone with the intention of giving the baby to another person or couple, or when someone else's egg and sperm are combined in a lab, and then transplanted. Our technology cannot currently take an embryo or fetus (i.e. when a woman knows she is pregnant) and put it into another person.

We can grab one, why not one hundred?

[Kelinfort]

Lol surrogates are feasible in the zygote/blastocyst state, i.e. before a woman knows she is pregnant. Surrogates happen when a woman is either impregnated by someone with the intention of giving the baby to another person or couple, or when someone else's egg and sperm are combined in a lab, and then transplanted. Our technology cannot currently take an embryo or fetus (i.e. when a woman knows she is pregnant) and put it into another person.

We can grab one, why not one hundred?

...what?

[The Flood]

I don't consider the weird, 40 year old, to be the public.
That's a minority...

By this logic, NOTHING is important. There isn't any video that has been watched by the majority of the world.

Gangnam Style

checkmate

[Mavorpen]

By this logic, NOTHING is important. There isn't any video that has been watched by the majority of the world.

Gangnam Style

checkmate

Which hasn't been watched by the majority of the world. Not even fucking close.

[The Flood]

Christians created this country and now we are being persecuted by filth like YOU

*** WARNED FOR FLAMING *** - and, as a side note, consider this an unofficial warning for smiley spam. One smiley is sufficient.
EDIT TO ADD: I haven't trawled the entire thread; if there's additional rulebreaking I missed, please provide links directly to the posts in question. But ... I'm sure the rest of you were all being very well behaved ... right?

I filed a report about this thread here

[The Flood]

Really? No rebuttal?

Here's a suggestion. Why not just take them and put them in either A) surrogates, or B) a growth chamber. Or, even though all sides will be disgusted, C) use them in experiments to see how well genes can be manipulated to see how we can advance our own evolution (i.e. stop the hearts from fusing in the latter part of the pregnancy to create a race of stronger, smarter, and faster human beings).

'Stop the hearts from fusing'

um... what?

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Lol surrogates are feasible in the zygote/blastocyst state, i.e. before a woman knows she is pregnant. Surrogates happen when a woman is either impregnated by someone with the intention of giving the baby to another person or couple, or when someone else's egg and sperm are combined in a lab, and then transplanted. Our technology cannot currently take an embryo or fetus (i.e. when a woman knows she is pregnant) and put it into another person.

We can grab one, why not one hundred?

You can grab it, sure. You can't get it to survive the transfer or implant into another woman's uterus.
Is biology really this difficult for you? A fetus doesn't just grow because it's in the uterus. It has to be attached to the uterus, that's why the vast majority of fertilized eggs are do not become babies; they don't implant.

[The Flood]

Really? Surrogates aren't feasible? Tell that to all the surrogate mothers or women/cloned animals who have used them.

Ok, how are you going to take an attached embryo already in utero, then transplant it into another woman, ensure development of an umbilical cord, proper growth and deliver, all while keeping cost down? Surrogates don't develop an embryo in another body before transfer.

Don't know, but this technology must be invested in, and cost shouldn't be a factor. There should be no price on human life. Artificial wombs are the one true compromise that everyone could be satisfied by, and they must become a reality, available to all.

[Kelinfort]

Ok, how are you going to take an attached embryo already in utero, then transplant it into another woman, ensure development of an umbilical cord, proper growth and deliver, all while keeping cost down? Surrogates don't develop an embryo in another body before transfer.

Don't know, but this technology must be invested in, and cost shouldn't be a factor. There should be no price on human life. Artificial wombs are the one true compromise that everyone could be satisfied by, and they must become a reality, available to all.

Wouldn't it just be easier to invest in a potential mechanism that could allow a woman and a man to decide when to release genetic information?