I guess some people don’t realize that the Onion is a news lampoon. I mean this is a site that recently posted a news report that the last few minutes of the finally Harry Potter film was going to be split into 7 different movies.
Because getting rid of something without any feeling and gassing people causing them to die a horrible, extremely painful death are totally the same things!
People against abortions are idiots that dont realize that abortion = money and no more fires and stuff. If they want to read thire “Bibel” all day long, let do. But if thehy want to stop us from aborting then they can jsut go kiss jesus!
Are you serious? Come on if you are going to go off on someone or their way of life at least learn how to spell so people might THINK you are educated.
I’m not going to argue anymore than this comment but depending on how far along the baby is it may be able to feel. And sin isn’t ranked, but as far as social injustice goes I would say the Holocaust was far worse than abortion.
And Noah needs to learn how to type because at least it will make him look just a little bit smart.
Read the full comment, specifically the last part:
#provokingreligiouspeople
And note how select easy words were misspelled but most of them (including commonly misspelled words) aren’t. It’s called trolling, and he even tagged it at the end, lol. He even hyperexaggerated pro-choice rhetoric to make it even more infuriating. The misspellings were to ensure a reply. It was deliberate, and was intended to illicit a response from pro-lifers. He succeeded.
Incorrect, there was indeed an irate response on both aspects. By using two trolling techniques simultaneously he pissed off two groups of people and got a response. Win for Multi-tasking troll!
Let’s talk about Johnny. He was a brilliant boy in school, getting As in his classes until 11th grade English. He graduated college, and then went on to get a Phd in biology. He worked hard and diligently in a research lab, and managed to devise a way to repair the genes in many genetic illnesses, curing thousands. He became very rich off of this, and later in life he became a small-scale philathropist, helping fund many other research groups looking for cures to cancer or AIDs. When he finally died, it made the news, and many people around the world were grateful for what he had accomplished in life.
Sadly, this never happened. Johnny was aborted as a fetus because his mother already had two children and didn’t want another one because then things would be annoying in resteraunt booths.
uh….you know that’s true, right? many people having abortions do indeed have kids already, or plan for kids in the future, maybe when not broke. i mean, seriously, this is mysterious for some people?
Now, let’s talk about Billy. Billy’s father, Frank, was an abusive drunk. His mother, Ellie, stayed with him out of fear. Frank was one day arrested after nearly beating Ellie to death. Due to his traumatic childhood, Billy had difficulty in school for many years, but later buckled down due to the influence of his school counsellor. He found that he really enjoyed science, and went to university to study physics. He went on to get a PhD in theoretical physics. He worked hard in a lab, conducting experiments and analysing the results. Having impressed his peers, he was given the opportunity to work at the largest particle accelerator of his day. He designed several experiments which allowed him to postulate a grand unifying theory, which was supported by all experiments to follow. He had solved the greatest mystery of modern science. He was awarded the Nobel Prize, and went on to make many important discoveries, one of which found applications in power generation which paved the way for clean energy.
Sadly, this never happened. Ellie left Frank before the relationship became too violent. She later married a man named Dave. She and Dave had three children, who grew up to be day labourers and help desk staff.
We make decisions every day which affect the future. The cure for cancer may have been wiped out a thousand times by someone being too afraid to ask out their crush. We can’t base all our decisions on the best possible outcome thirty years down the road. It’s physically impossible.
Then there’s also, of course, the story of little Bob. Bob was a brilliant boy at school, getting As in his classes until 11th grade English. At home, however, he had an abusive and drunk father, Frank, and a mother who stayed with Frank to be able to support her son. Bob graduated college, and then went on to get a Phd in biology. His mother, Kate, couldn’t attend his graduation ceremony because her bruised face would show too much. Bob became a biology teacher, helping build the young minds of the future, and often gave his students private lessons, where he started using his authority to abuse them, like his father had done before him. Eventually his mother died, due to a fall from the stairs, and Bob severed all ties to his previous life. Up to the end of his life, Bob was a good biology teacher, and nobody suspected that he abused little kids. He never married, but he did beat up a couple of his girlfriends. Due to his traumatic childhood, he was never able to relate to another human being.
Gladly, this never happened. Kate had an abortion as soon as she found out she was pregnant, and when Frank first threatened beating her, she left him. She then resumed her studies, got into college, went on to get a Phd in biology. She worked hard and diligently in a research lab, and managed to devise a way to repair the genes in many genetic illnesses, curing thousands. A few years later, Kate married a great physicist and they had a couple of adorable and beloved children. One of them, named Bob, designed several experiments which allowed him to postulate a grand unifying theory, which was supported by all experiments to follow. He won a Nobel prize and eventually became a small-scale philathropist, helping fund many other research groups looking for cures to cancer or AIDs.
Like Ben said, we make decisions every day which can affect the future in larger or smaller scale, and we don’t know the exact results of each decision.
Kay now let’s talk about Billy. Billy grew up to be a megalomaniacal dictator of an oil-rich South American banana republic and decided to wage war on his neighbors and ended up getting his country invaded by the United States Marines and they found out he had a killing room in his Presidential palace where he was marching a dozen little boys in each day, violently raping them and then chopping their heads off. Except he didn’t because he was aborted.
I like your argument, but note that it could just as easily be used as an argument against not having 15+ kids, since each kid you decide not to have is a potential person that is prevented from existing.
Indeed. Every action we ever take could be preventing someone from existing.
We just can’t live on that basis. We deal with the here, the now, and the future as we can plan it. Believing you have the power to decide which people are going to exist or not is absurd. You can decide for your own life, and for the life of the people who are living around you, and what you think is right.
I think it’s really self-centered to believe in any sort of religion and think that you’re able to make a difference in who is born or not. If someone is supposed to exist, they will, no matter what you do.
I think that Stephen Bradbury disproves that. He failed so hard that when all the other skaters fell over he was the onlly one who could win. Hence a win gained through successful failure.
+1 to you, sir. forbidding abortion is just like forbidding one to have anal sex. it is not done that often and mostly not necessary, but nonetheless nice to have the option. your body, your choice… not that of some people who think they know what is best for you. if your dead fetus’s soul comes back to haunt you, thats not their problem now is it? i’d rather be haunted than have no life or career at all because a condom ripped at 17 and it is illegal to decide about your own body. that and your kid will have a crappy life too since you never got any good education or life experience. eat that, conservatives.
Did you compare anal sex and abortion? Really? Really now?
I never figured most abortions were done for pleasure.
This has to be the stupidest Pro-Choice argument I ever saw. I showed it to my 110% pro-choice sister and she said
“That almost makes me want to switch sides.”
I agree, it’s inside the woman whether it’s living or not. The only problem is that the organization itself is funded by the government, thus our tax dollars go to our local planned parenthood establishment, which is what most of the people (religious or not) have a problem with. So how do we keep it running without money?
Actually, the Hyde Amendment bars all government funds from going towards abortions. Planned Parenthood does receive funds for other services they provide, like routine screenings, breast exams, std testing, etc… But any funding from abortion comes from other areas
Planned Parenthood does other things that are not abortions: They are the OB-Gyn for poor people, and federal money only goes into this- no federal money is allowed to be used for abortions.
This.^^^
It’s against federal law for federal dollars to go towards abortion. All the federal money goes to other things and the abortion costs are covered by individual donations/corporate donations/other forms of income that I can’t think of at the moment.
Its called giving the baby up for adoption. That way, you can still live your life, and the baby can live theirs. Also, many women have terrible nightmares after they abort- you can’t be so easily separated from something that has literally been a part of you, if only for 3 months
It’s also called not your damn choice. Even if a woman gives the baby up for adoption, she still has to go through pregnancy and labour. Those things are happening to her body, not yours.
As for the psychological effects, that varies from person to person. I know woman who’ve had abortions and thought nothing of it. I know one who had a miscarriage, and so would find it difficult, but still would abort at this point in her life.
The fact is, the psychological effects are also hers. If she decides it’s worth it, that’s her decision.
You’re right. No nonviable entity that happens to be using me as an incubator is more important than me, the host. Feel free to use any fallacious appeals to emotion you want by inventing images of cute little brains being scrambled. I will be relaxing with visions of a Denver omelette and a life of my own design.
However, there are already SO MANY children without homes that need them. These children can grow up feeling unloved because they were given up.
This is why there should be a CHOICE. Some women want to give a child up for adoption, others prefer to prevent having a child by either:
going to Planned Parenthood for affordable protection, and if that fails, an early abortion, depending on their beliefs.
I happen to believe in science and therefore understand that nobody is suffering from an abortion except perhaps the mother (once again, that’s their decision).
Also: nobody on this planet that doesn’t have a uterus has any right telling me what I can and can’t do with mine. And for the women that believe abortion should be illegal: quit being a control freak and take a midol.
There is currently a hefty waiting line for adoptions to the point that people are going out of the country to adopt, the numbers of orphans are not an issue
Yeah but what happens when they become wards of the state two years later because mom can’t take care of them? Those kids are unwanted because they have “troubles.” Sure the cute little newborns get adopted but what about the toddlers, children, and teenagers who are orphans? Everyone wants a perfect baby, no one wants one with a disability or one that is a year old.
Oh bull. There might be a wait for healthy, perfectly formed, white newborns, straight from the hospital, in an open adoption, from a mother who spent her pregnancy 100% free from drugs, cigarettes and alcohol. Which is approximately 0.00000001% of all the kids who need homes.
This argument makes me so angry. Kids – REAL KIDS – wait for years and years in foster care and most never have a snowballs chance in hell of adoption. They wll age out of the system and end up on the streets or in jail. Period. That’s the cold hard truth of the US adoption scene. The people who are in a place where they need to make adoption plans for their children tend to be people of color, people living in poverty, drug addicted, people not exactly getting good prenatal care. Thus the kids available for adoption have a million strikes against them from the beginning.
Adoption is an AWESOME way to build a family. My own family is now 4th generation built by adoption and I wouldn’t have it any other way. But to say oh, hey, pregnant women should just continue their pregnances and make adoption plans for their kids instead of ever aborting, is flatly ignorant and ridiculous. I of course fully support it in some cases, but pushing it on the majority of women when there are already so very, very many kids on waiting lists who will NEVER have parents is foolish and cruel.
Imagine all those little twelve year old who are devastated that they didn’t receive a Hogwarts letter the year before, they’re probably still cursing their lives even as we speak.
I’d rather be dead than bounced from home to home. My cousin is adopted. When my aunt got to the orphange to meet him, he was laying in a dirty diaper, smelly and crying. Because they’ve already got too many damn kids to change and feed them properly
There’s not even enough people to cover the kids that are already in social services. Let’s throw in a few hundred thousand extra babies per year and see how well it works…
Don’t you people think about the consequences of what you want, especially considering most people are against choice are also against same-sex couple adoption? Let’s increase the number of unwanted babies and decrease the potential pool of adopting couples. That’ll work… >.>
Not so easy to separate from something that’s been inside you for 3 months? I’ve had moles removed that made me more forlorn. Precancerous cells are living too, ya know! But nine months, agony of labor, and then giving away the fully formed being you’ve incubated for the better part of a year–that’s easier? And some people have nightmares? That’s your argument? Go research the stats on postpartum depression and get back to me. Your entire post is a logical fallacy.
People decide they’re more important than other people every day. If you own a cell phone, you decided your life is more important than the poor buggers in Malaysia getting lead poisoning from making them for you. Oh, and they’re all adults. Do you have any idea how messed up most surrendered kids’ lives are messed up? And how many wind up homeless? Surrendered does not mean adopted. We’d wind up with a foster-kid factory instead of parents waiting until they can have a child they LOVE and WANT.
Less women than you think have feelings of regret after their abortions, and even for those that do — does that mean that no women should be able to, because of the chance that they may regret it? Do you just think women are too stupid to assess risks and make decisions for themselves?
“You’re going to give the baby up for adoption? Fine. Now piss off and we don’t want to hear from you ’til after it’s born. No we don’t care if you don’t have a job or anything to eat. And no we don’t care what happens to you afterwards. Goodbye.”
Its funny that conservatives rail against abortion, and also push for bigger punishments for crackheaded, poor criminals from the ghetto. And all the while gripe about the increased cost of jailing said criminals. But they never seem to realize that those very criminals were very likely subject to being aborted by their mothers way back when. But maybe the mom chose life, maybe due to all the pressure from the conservatives….
Depends on the conservative. I am conservative, which means I believe in a limited government in my economic and social affairs. I am all for legalization of marijuana and am pro-choice because the government does not belong in a medical procedures.
Perhaps you shouldn’t have sex if you aren’t mature enough or ready to deal with the consequences. You wouldn’t have to worry about the “ripped condom at 17″ if you didn’t have sex in the first place. If you are that concerned about an education and a career then you would focus on it and not worry about doing other things that could jeopardize it. That’s a little selfish don’t you think?
Abortion deals with the pregnancy consequence, and ultimately solves it.
As for ladyjpm…
To defend abstention is a way of avoiding dealing with the pregnancy and abortion discussion.
To defend abstention is a way of avoiding dealing with our social ideals of freedom, of non-prejudice, of acceptance, and even of love, and avoiding dealing with the concept of youth that changes over time. It means alienating yourself from the values the whole society holds, from which the sexual freedom is only a fruit. And after talking about sex a lot with my mother, my grandmother and their friends, I must say it really isn’t possible to go against that. The past is quite dark in that sense.
If everyone leaves making sex for when they’re ready to have a baby, the society will miss out on relationships and ultimately in human exchanges and personal growth. Nowadays, those who choose not having sex before marriage are still benefiting from a society that allows it, and from the general atmosphere created by the people who do.
Also, by society, I’m talking about my society – since it’s the only one I can talk with some property about – which is the occidental culture in general, sometimes american culture in particular.
Seriously, you don’t need to have your life ruined by a ripped condom even if you don’t abort.
You can just give away your kid to another family, you can even make a profit. Just because god gave you that child doesn’t mean it’s different than something you buy at Wal-Mart – if you’re not satisfied, you can bring it back (well sort of) by returning it to your local church.
You can even make a nice sum of money if you want to. Or you can just trade it for a Big Mac.
Thanks to Christians, babies are now a common trade good which can be sold, exchanged or just given away. Abortions are no longer required. Why deny birth to a child when you can involve him or her in human traffic? Oh yeah, because you are an evil atheist, that’s why.
Problem is, it isn’t just your body. When a woman becomes pregnant she’s the vessel. And another thing-doesn’t anybody these days appreciate the sacred bond called MARRIAGE? If you’re going to disagree with the Bible and all of Christianity, please, PLEASE, at least have SOME idea what you’re talking about.
Teen pregnancy is probably God’s way of saying ‘Clean up your own messes, I’m tired of bailing you out. But I still love you, so here’s a little miracle with it’s own likes and thoughts and emotions. I’ll never give you more than you can handle; this is a challenge to test your faith and strength. For their sake, don’t let me down.’
Some need to realize that you may have done what’s required to create a life but it’s not yours to throw away just because you don’t think you’re ready. And I know the Abortionplex thing isn’t real but this is a sad, scary epidemic.
This means you have something to say if you meet someone who is considering an abortion. And it’s a pretty story, receiving a little life because someone out there wants us to be responsible for another human life. It’s cute. And terrible, if you think of how much this someone would interfere with my life. But cute.
However, the government shouldn’t make rules to abide by one religion’s beliefs. If I believe my fetus will only be a baby by 6th week of pregnancy, and only then it’ll have a soul, what right does anyone have to forbid me taking it out before that? To me, it’s nothing up to that point.
On the other hand, religious beliefs can’t be excuses to harm people, so a line must be drawn somewhere. I’ll leave that to science, who can be objective about the matter.
Or it’s your god’s way of saying ” Lol, I’m here to f*** with your life. U mad bro?”
Yeah that “little miracle” will be not only a financial burden, but a source of emotional distress, social judgement and torment at school, and if your parents are violent, abuse. And yes, it is their body, until the baby is born, it is their body. It’s like saying that an apartment manager is evil if he kicks somebody out because he can’t handle having them there, financially or emotionally. And since when has marriage been sacred? Men have been cheating on women and vice-versa since the dawn of time.
Keep your religious arguments in the Dark Ages where they belong.
Those who use the internet primarily for facebook and email wouldn’t necessarily know that the Onion was a satirical site. All it takes is one person, either out of ignorance or for the lulz to post the story to their wall and it can spread.
it’s not my fault if the ignorant idiots of the internet don’t know satire if it stood up and smacked them in the face…(which ironically, is EXACTLY what this article did!)
so the baby is dead for 9 months, is that what you’re saying? A dead baby is sitting in the mother’s womb, living off of her energy and food stuffs and moving around and kicking her for 9 months? Is THAT what you’re saying? My mom said I had the hiccups a lot before I was born. I suppose she was just making it up?
If navigating the birth canal from the inside out is all it takes to achieve life then why haven’t we been taking advantage of this before now? “Your child was miscarried? Not to worry! We’ll just stuff him back in there and try again!”
You know that doctors can monitor a baby’s heartbeat from inside the womb, right..? Or are heartbeats no longer a luxury exclusive only to the “living”?
He didn’t say it was dead… just not alive … yet. If it can’t survive on its own out in the world without an incubator – I would suggest it is not alive in a meaningful way.
I guess you would aren’t alive in a meanigful way since you can’t survive on your own…. you know outside the incubator that is modern society that provides you with food you don’t have to hunt, shelter you don’t have to build and this wonderful toy the internets.
The grass and dandelions on my lawn are alive. But I don’t shed tears over them when I mow the lawn of break out the Round Up. They’re living, growing, breathing creatures, created by God. But you know what they lack?
Sentience.
Same as a human zygote, or a cluster of cells. Human or not, a cluster of a dozen cells is NOT developed enough to be aware of what is going on, and no amount of argument of “oh we just don’t know for sure!” is going to convince me otherwise. In a perfect world, abortion would never be necessary. But the world isn’t perfect, and humans aren’t perfect. So in a difficult, horrible situation, YES I will always choose to support and protect a living, feeling, emotional, thoughtful, sentient human being over the zygote that may be living but nothing more. And I will continue to work towards a future where such situations and decisions won’t have to be necessary.
I know this comment was posted a long, long time ago, but I need to reply to it anyway. That is the most elegant and thoughtful elucidation of the pro-choice viewpoint I have ever seen. I agree wholeheartedly.
No, you cannot kill a baby because as soon as the baby is born, it is granted human rights. Part of those rights are that nobody can kill it (well, they could, but legal consequences would follow).
They had implied that consciousness is what grants a person those human rights, and that “science shows” that a child doesn’t gain that consciousness until they are 1.5 years old.
“And so far science shows humans are not conscious until they are 1.5 years of age”
Actually they found that a fetus can remember around the 12-16 week stage (3-4 months). Can’t remember the article but I saw it on the webs so I know it’s true
Humans may not become self-aware until several months after birth, but we develop higher brain function and the ability to receive sensory information (i.e. feel things) around the beginning of the third trimester.
Fetus, baby, child, teenager, adult… Words, stages of life. It’s the same person before it’s born that it is after, and the same person that it will be as an adult.
Christian abortion: A swift punch to the gut or kicking her down the stairs works well. And you kill two birds with one stone – you keep your wife in her place.
….can’t tell if trolling or stole one of the prison guard’s Internet-capable smart phones and thought you’d share your ‘genius logic’ on any subject you see.
Good point. Or we could just make them only legal for the poor or stupid. Soon enough we could have genetic testing done to see if the baby is worthy of life or death!
Pro-life activists who have an issue with the pro-choice people don’t realize how luck they are that there aren’t any ‘pro-abortion’ people who advocate mandatory abortions for poor people, students, teenagers, people over 45, prostitutes and other ‘immoral people’, convicts, drug addicts, diseased people, etc.
Really, if there were ‘pro-abortion’ people, pro-life people would have something to really worry about.
Pro-choice: “if you think your fetus is a person, keep it. If not, nobody should make it their business to tell you you’re wrong”
Curiously enough, I think that these “pro-abortion” guys, the way you built them, would have far more in common with “pro-life” people than “pro-choice” people.
Hey, now. Just because there are a lot of vocal Christian idiots does not mean that Christians are inherently idiots. (Or that idiots are inherently Christian). Some of us understand that issues are complicated and prefer not to preach hate and view things with a healthy skepticism and still love and serve the Lord. The “religious” Right has hijacked my religion but they have no authority to speak for it.
The 48% of the USA that doesn’t accept evolution… Being that the USA is mostly American, it is safe to say that most Americans are idiots.
Generalisation FTW!
Actually, I agree with that assessment. Unfortunately for religion, that’s mostly religion’s doing. Case and point: how many atheist creationists do you know?
Atheism is the philosophical position that there is no such thing as a God or Gods. Creationism is the belief that a God or Gods created the universe. There aren’t any atheist creationists not because of anyone’s level of intelligence, but because the views are mutually exclusive. It’s like trying to prove a point by saying “how many expert videogamer Luddites do you know?”
Well, it may not be a majority per se, but it still means that the country must be really crazy as a whole to have such a huge percentage of people who don’t “believe” in evolution.
LOL “Christian families [sic] don’t use abortions anyway…” I see that once again facts aren’t getting in the way of religious rhetoric.
Education and choice reduces abortions (and the need for abortion, when contraception is available and not stigmatised). Model countries for this would include secular societies such as the Netherlands and Scandinavia.
“sic” actually means “I’m passing on material that isn’t mine, the spelling and grammar are not my mistakes, but they have been lifted, verbatim, from the original materials”
You made me happy with your accuracy! If those idiots who protest @PP could think properly, they’d let those girls go into the clinic in peace. They’d then be educated about choices, and on the birth control to PREVENT an unwanted pregnancy. Instead, they scare or shame girls away, who then have sex without birth control, get pregnant and have to decide a)have an abortion. b)have a baby and screw up 2 lives at once.
Sorry… you don’t get to play that card, because in almost every case, anti-abortion nutcases are Christians.
Get over it. If you’re worried about your silly beliefs being mocked because some idiot with your silly beliefs and some even sillier beliefs than that is put in the spot light, maybe you shouldn’t have such silly beliefs to begin with.
Oh trust me, I have known plenty of “Christian” folks that have received abortions… desperate people have desperate measures, no matter what they believe in.
My mom always insisted I go to church with her. Then the preacher’s 16-year-old son and a kid…Swapped churches. You know, like that changed the fact he was nice or something
The pope is in favor of condom use for some people (prostitutes, those with viruses and diseases). I think he just wants people to smarten up some too. Too many idiots in the world thinking fathering 13 kids and not know which ones are actually theirs… It’s also why he mandated like 2 months of marriage counseling before they can get married.
Yeah, I only went for one weekend of marriage counseling before I got married in the Catholic church. I honestly think the churches just pick whatever they want you to go through.
Quick sidenote: my mom and dad got married in the Catholic church as well. She told me that the priest told her while counseling her that she was only allowed to mastvrbate if she and her husband had sex and he was asleep but she still needed to…you know…finish. True story!
“Though I don’t agree, I can understand why people dislike abortions, but now they’re against condoms, pills and IUD’s??” = exactly what was going through my mind.
That’s been the long held position of the Catholic church.
Arund here, our local Catholic Church has the side of a barn painted with a fetus and big letters that say: “Birth control: It’s abortion in dsguise!” lolz.
Onion = Satirical website. They keep just enough facts and current events references to trick people who otherwise might not be aware and do not read the whole article.
The Onion is a satirical news organization based in Chicago. Nothing they say is true; it’s all a joke.
You might as well believe the things you read at Landover Baptist Church!
Personally, I enjoy them both. But only someone very gullible would believe that their stories are in any way factual. Anyone who takes the time to fact check a tiny bit can figure this out, even if they’ve never heard of them.
I think I can help you with that. See, if we send out an electrical charge accompanied by cuts of data, we will be able to send a taser shock to anyone’s computer, it will be affective but slow since the energy might bog down the communication speed/
That wasn’t a nuclear war though. That was a conventional war ended by nuclear weapons, not a war fought through the use of said weapons.
Maybe I’m missing something fundamental here, or maybe there’s a difference in understanding of the terminology, but a nuclear war is where the belligerents fight with nuclear weapons, both (or all) sides. IE, the weapon of choice is nuclear and probably end in MAD.
Sweden FTW! It’s on my list of countries to flee to when America becomes even move of a totalitarian hell. My current list (not prioritized, just whichever I can learn the language of fastest) is:
1. Denmark
2. The Netherlands
3. Sweden
4. Switzerland
I should probably warn you, the cuisine’s terrible. I have a Swedish sister-in-law and have on a number of occasions had to sample her traditional-style cooking, and can reliably report that the Swedes regard food as something to flavour the salt with.
try talking to someone who’s lived in a “totalitarian hell” state, and think about that the next time you make any kind of choice whatsoever, spoiled little fvcktard.
What? It doesn’t kill children, it disposes of unwanted cells, in just the same way women’s bodies do in 7 out of 10 pregnancies.
It doesn’t hurt women – certainly not as much as carrying a full term pregnancy or giving birth does!
And how on earth does it protect sex predators?
That doesn’t even make sense!
It actually does hurt women. It has horrible psychological effects in many cases. Some women are actually unable to conceive further down the road. I’m sure the latter isn’t as common now as it once was, but still. My opinion is if you don’t want to have a baby, either keep your legs closed or use protection. Both of those also helpful in preventing STDs. Lol. And, if you do get pregnant, then please, put the baby up for adoption. Some people like my husband and I would love to be given a chance to be parents to a baby whose parents either didn’t want to or couldn’t take care of it. Yes, I am obviously pro-life. No, I will not get into a huge argument over it. This is my honest opinion. I have said what I have to say. That’s it.
You’re right. Women should totally force themselves through the ordeal of pregnancy and labour when they don’t want to so other people can get a baby sooner.
I have been pregnant (and it definitely was not the best) and I know many people who have children so, I speak from experience when I say pregnancy and labor aren’t that bad. The worst part is the delivery; and personally, I don’t like epidurals (not a big fan of medicine and needles scare me), but I’m not against the use of them if someone doesn’t want to go through the pain. Also, c-sections are optional now.
And, as I said previously, they should keep their legs closed or use protection.
Good for you. So, you’ve experienced every pregnancy? You’ve experienced all of the complications that can accompany labour, or the pregnancy itself? You have every genetic condition which can complicate reproduction? You are every person with a functional female reproductive system, and thus are able to determine what they do with them?
As I said previously, contraception is never 100% effective.
I never said contraception was 100%. It helps, though. And I wish that those times it failed, people would choose to keep the baby so he/she would have a chance at being loved by those of us who would love to be able to do so.
Ben, I wish most men I knew defended women’s choices like you do.
As for hippogators, I follow you, and I wouldn’t advise anyone to abort, as I wouldn’t abort myself (an opinion which changed over time and might change again). But I also think that women should make their own choices on what they can or cannot handle, be it trauma from abortion, stress and body changes from pregnancy, post-birth depression or giving up their babies. I’m actually more in favor of abortion than giving up for adoption, because I think it’s harder on the mom to give up a baby that shared her body for months, and harder on the baby, that isn’t loved as it should from the start.
Personally, I’ve known people who went to extremes not to carry an unwanted pregnancy (abortion is illegal where I live, though there are a few doctors who perform it), and I can’t see how someone feels right by forcing them to it. As for me, if I was told I can’t decide what to do with my body, especially based on unproven beliefs of theirs, I’d be seriously enraged.
Women abort since cave age. Some people thinking it’s wrong won’t change this, nor the rejection they feel for the fetus, nor the health problems that come with abortions performed in third-hand clinics, or even on their own bathroom. Or the defective child that comes from an unsuccessful attempt.
Please, let them do it safely, because they already choose.
I speak from experience that my pregnancy sucked ass. Hated every moment of it, from the first discovery of being pregnant to my 18 hour labor and last minute C-section.
And then I finally had the most precious and beautiful child ever. Holding my baby in my arms and finally getting to see what’s been growing inside of me was pretty magical. Would I suffer through pregnancy to have another? I’d rather set myself on fire. I’m sure if I had another, it’d be different. Would I take that chance? F*ck no.
I’m glad it wasn’t that bad for you, but for a few others, it’s a nightmare. Don’t generalize pregnancy because you didn’t have a bad experience.
I am aware of that. Honestly, I mostly said that because I was pissed off. My point is that potential parents aren’t on a waiting list due to lack of babies up for adoption. All that having mothers give up their babies will do is overcrowd the system even more, making life even harder for the children. It will not make it easier for a person to adopt.
Abortions are, in lots of parts of the world, merely an option. It’s not mandated, as in China. Some women are unable to conceive for *any* reason, such as having had children, or from growing older. Are you advocating banning both of these things???
For every lifestyle choice (ie. from having sex to getting an operation) there are risks and benefits. PP helps women and girls get informed and make the legal options available. What’s psychologically harmful about that? Do you think that going through an unwanted pregnancy and then being obliged to give this born life up for adoption is not psychologically horrible?
Why are you so narrow-minded about a complex, personal issue? Are you even aware of the failure rates of condoms in preventing pregnancy and STDs even when used properly?
Did you know that some girls are paid to have babies to be put on the adoptive market for bleeding-heart first-world couples to adopt? Is supporting a baby mill the right thing to do? Shee-it!
“Are you even aware of the failure rates of condoms in preventing pregnancy and STDs even when used properly?”
With typical use, the pill is 92 to 97 percent effective. With perfect use, the pill can be 99.9 percent effective.
Combine that with also using a condom and the chances are reduced even further. Why would you not just use both? It really isn’t that difficult to prevent pregnancy.
So your position is that, if one doesn’t take every possible precaution against pregnancy – not just reasonable precautions – then they deserve to be forced through pregnancy and labour? What about those one in one thousand instances of fully protected PIV which we should expect to result in pregnancy?
Please don’t presume to know my position. First of all, I think using 2 methods IS “reasonable precautions”.
My position is simply that an unborn baby is a living human being. Don’t all human beings supposedly have a right to life? No, wait, only human beings who are out of the womb are considered actual human beings, right? Seems silly to me.
You conveniently neglected to answer my query about those pregnancies which arise despite using reasonable precautions.
As for the fetus, get some science in you. An unborn baby is not a living human being. I don’t think it occurs at the moment of birth, but sufficiently early in the process, it is not sentient. There is no awareness. There’s not even any differentiation between it and the fetus of another species (judging from your concern for human rights, I’m guessing you don’t give a crap about the rights of other species).
The answer to your question was “Don’t all human beings supposedly have a right to life?”.
I’d like to see this “science” that states directly that a fetus is not alive, or human.
Appearance-wise, no, there isn’t much difference, but that’s where the similarities end. From conception, the human fetus has a unique set of DNA specific only to humans. (You did know they had DNA, didn’t you? That doesn’t just appear in the last month of pregnancy.) And no, it is not the mother’s DNA. I won’t say it’s completely different from the mom’s because half the chromosomes do come from her so you’d have to assume some of it is the same, but it is the baby’s own individual DNA none-the-less.
Sentience has nothing to do with being alive. The baby is alive through the whole process, sentience or not. If you’d like to argue further whether the baby is alive or not, then I’ll need you to tell me what the baby is if not alive. Also, when does the baby “come to life”?
I never claimed the fetus is not alive. It clearly is. It grows, and metabolises. What I said is that life, in and of itself, is unimportant in the dissemination of rights.
Bacteria’s alive. I gladly wipe it out with medication. I use cleaners designed to exterminate them. Being alive does not confer rights onto someone.
The cells in my hair have human DNA. Am I killing a human being every time I get a haircut?
DNA is not sentient. It is sentience which infers rights. Something which is not sentient cannot feel, nor fear death. The DNA patterns are irrelevant.
As for the fetus not being human, we know that the fetuses of related species are indistinguishable at early stages of development (generally, the more related they are, the later they diverge). As I’ve already pointed out, the DNA patterns are irrelevant, so the death of a human fetus is not different than the death of the fetus of a cow, or a dog, or a pig, depending on when it occurs.
Had I said it was 100% effective when using 2 or more methods, then yes, you would invalidate that point. Since I didn’t say that, you fall into the 1-2% failure rate. I’d say 1-2% is a pretty small chance, no?
Even a 0,1% means you get a baby every two or three years, having sex every day.
Seeing that girls start having sex as early as 13 these days, and people can carry pregnancies successfully almost beyond their 50ies… You have some 30-35 years of fertile life, which would give you about 10 pregnancies per girl, when contraception failed. That’s even within marriage (I’m not sure why, but people usually think married couples never think of abortion).
Even if you had sex once a week, and taking the 0,1% rate, you’d still have at least 1-2 unwanted children to every woman that used more than one form of contraception all the time.
The only method which could prevent that would be the one I can’t even argue against because it strikes me as too crazy to use as a policy – abstinence. It’s so absurd and difficult (and I’d say anti-natural) that people make careers out of it, they establish it as the peak of devotion to their faiths. Really can’t make a public policy out of it.
The failure rate doesn’t mean it fails every 1-2% of the time. It means EACH time, separately, there is a 1-2% chance you will get pregnant and a 98-99% chance that you won’t. Learn how odds work before responding next time.
If, each time, there’s a 1-2% chance that one will get pregnant, then the law of averages states that you should expect pregnancy to occur in 1-2% of cases.
Learn how statistics works before responding next time.
Learn how statistics actually work before responding.
“The law of averages is a lay term used to express a belief that outcomes of a random event will “even out” within a small sample.
As invoked in everyday life, the “law” usually reflects bad statistics or wishful thinking rather than any mathematical principle. While there is a real theorem that a random variable will reflect its underlying probability over a very large sample, the law of averages typically assumes that unnatural short-term “balance” must occur. Typical applications of the law also generally assume no bias in the underlying probability distribution, which is frequently at odds with the empirical evidence.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_averages
-”the principle that, in the long run, probability as naively conceived will operate and influence any one occurrence.”
-”the expectation that a possible event is bound to occur regularly with a frequency approximating to its probability, as in the (actually false) example: after five heads in a row the law of averages makes tails the better bet”
-”The idea that probability will influence all occurrences in the long term, that one will neither win nor lose all of the time. For example, If it rains every day this week, by the law of averages we’re bound to get a sunny day soon . This colloquial term is a popular interpretation of a statistical principle, Bernoulli’s theorem, formulated in the late 1600s.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/law+of+averages
Regardless, you’re still wrong. If a person has sex once (using the above mentioned level of protection), there is a 1-2% chance that that one time will result in pregnancy and a 98-99% chance that it will not result in pregnancy. The next time the person has sex, she has the same 1-2% chance of pregnancy and 98-99% chance of non-pregnancy. It doesn’t converge. The odds each time remain 1-2% yes and 98-99% no. How many times the person has sex is irrelevant. It doesn’t “even out” over time to eventually guarantee a pregnancy, as the law of averages would suggest.
“While there is a real theorem that a random variable will reflect its underlying probability over a very large sample, the law of averages typically assumes that unnatural short-term “balance” must occur.”
So, you think that PIV sex is an uncommon occurrence?
I got the name of the law wrong. You’ve thankfully provided me with the name of the real law. Thanks for the research.
Now, consider each instance of PIV to be a level on a tree graph. Of all the possible outcomes, 98% of them are no pregnancy, and 2% are pregnancy. Go out one hundred, and you will find that roughly 87% of the end points contain a pregnancy along the way. Go out one hundred, and you’ve got about the same odds of winning a lottery as you do of not having one resulting pregnancy.
While I will give you that more people have babies than win the lottery, that doesn’t mean that NOT getting pregnant is as rare as winning the lottery. Where is the logical reasoning for that? And where are you getting that 87% of people will have a pregnancy during their life? (And of that supposed percentage, how many were actually unwanted?)
No, I never said having sex was an uncommon occurrence. However, the “large numbers” in the theorem would include all of the billions of people in the world. They’re talking REALLY large numbers. If 1-2% of those using protection get pregnant, yes it is a pretty big number, but the 98-99% of them who don’t is a much bigger number.
Let’s use 6,775,235,700 as the world population for the purpose of this example. (Taken from http://www.google.com/publicdata from 2009). If every one of them is currently having (protected) sex, presume half are female. That’s 3,387,617,850 who have the potential to become pregnant. 2% of that number is 67,752,357, so that many women/girls would get pregnant. The 98% who don’t? 3,319,865,493. Seems like a pretty small chance to me.
Regardless of all of that, it doesn’t actually work that way. Law of large numbers or not, it is not anywhere close to a sure thing that 1-2% of people using protection will absolutely get pregnant.
You can’t say, well, I’ve had sex 99 times using this method, next time I’ll be getting pregnant. Statistics says so. That’s not how it works. That would be the law of averages.
You could have sex 6 times a day every day for 10 years, that’s 21,900 times, and you’d be no closer to having a guaranteed pregnancy the next time you have sex. Each instance has to be looked at as a single instance. The LLN has nothing to do with condom failure rates.
The law of large numbers (thanks again) states that you can expect, for sufficiently large runs, that the number of “successful” cases will be equal to the probability of a successful case multiplied by the number of runs. This is the law that you pointed out. It doesn’t affect any particular case, no. The odds are 1-2% for any particular instance of PIV, but that means that you can expect a lot of unwanted pregnancies.
I find it odd that you are pointing out the relatively large number of successful cases, where pregnancy did not occur. That’s completely beside the point. Abortion is a moot issue in those cases.
What I’m saying, and what is backed up by the law you yourself provided, and your own argument, is that, even using protection, you can expect a lot of people to fall pregnant. Your stance on abortion would force those people, who took all reasonable measures to avoid pregnancy, to go through with it against their will.
And the number of people who do get pregnant illustrates just how big the effect is, despite the small odds. We’re talking about rights of the individual here, and so the real number is important.
Also, you are aware that a condom can fail to prevent pregnancy without breaking, right?
The way you’re looking at this is as if it states that “You will become pregnant in 1-2% of all cases of using this method of protection”. It doesn’t. It’s “Each time you have sex using this method of protection, your chance of getting pregnant this time is 1-2%. Your chance next time, if using the same method, will be 1-2%”.
That is two entirely different things, and if you can’t understand that, I can not help you. I have tried several times to explain it to you.
Contraception is not 100% effective. As for the adoption issue, the woman still has to go through the ordeal of pregnancy and labour. That’s her call to make, not yours.
The waiting line for adoptions is several years long. Also, there are women who change their minds about giving their babies up for adoption. All babies are perfect.
“You’re right. Women should totally force themselves through the ordeal of pregnancy and labour when they don’t want to so other people can get a baby sooner.”
Then why haven’t you adopted a child who’s older, rather than waiting for an infant? Two and three year olds aren’t yet “damaged goods” and generally do OK. I’ve known couples who wanted kids who were THRILLED with adopting older kids. Yeah, they come with baggage, especially when adopting a child of another race, but hey – they wanted a child bad enough to risk it, and yes, it worked out fine. One gal even adopted a family of kids – three girls, ranging in age from three years old to early teens. It was tough, but it worked, and she never regretted that decision.
Having known enough people who’ve had unplanned pregnancies (and thanking my deity of choice it wasn’t me), I have come to realize that having the CHOICE of having an abortion available is often the one thing that keeps a woman able to say “I am going through with this” and continue on – I personally know no one who has had an abortion, but know plenty of people who’ve chosen to keep their kid or give it up. But they had the choice available, and I would never take that choice away – to take away that choice would mean they would feel trapped and out of options. And you don’t want a pregnant young woman to feel she has no options – that’s why people find newborns in trashcans, even though most states have laws on the books saying a child can be left at a hospital, fire station, or police station within 48 to 72 hours after being born and there will be no questions asked, just the child will be taken in and all parental rights will be given up. The ones who suffer the most in those situations are always the child. Keep making the option available – lives will be saved. Honestly, I feel pro-choice people end up saving more lives than the pro-lifers, because BOTH the mother and the baby are being considered. And shouldn’t that be the real definition of “pro-life”?
All that being said, did you realize the Onion is a satire? And they were deliberately trying to piss off the pro-life people?
“I feel pro-choice people end up saving more lives than the pro-lifers, because BOTH the mother and the baby are being considered. And shouldn’t that be the real definition of “pro-life”?” <– THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS!!!!!!!
If I get pregnant while on my medication, my baby will almost definitely have terrible birth defects that will seriously affect its quality of life. Plus I’ll be passing on some sub-optimal genetic disorders.
My partner and I are really careful but accidents happen. If I have an unplanned pregnancy there’s a pretty high chance I’ll have an abortion.
It’s always the people that God sees fit to not have kids who have the most to say about someone else who CAN have kids. I’m so sorry that my reproductive organs work and yours don’t. Leave me alone about it, though. It’s not my fault.
i did get an abortion 2 years ago. I didnt had nightmares, as here they give you pills to make that event blur and more likely to forget the principal operation. I did it by choice and because it was most probably an empty egg anyways, so saving me from worse later (ie, a miscarriage) . Even if i did it from my own will, i did had some hard time right before dealing with it, and it is normal, it is ,after all, a mourning to do. But do i regret it? no. I had medical reasons, others people get financial or age reasons. (But i totally agree if people do use abortions as protection..pills and condoms exists, and are really easy to get..well in quebec anyways.)
i dont know where you did get your numbers but..psychological effects? as much as any big live event. Not able to ever want a child again? talk to my 3 months old girl. But i think all that pain and traumatism you refer to are from the old method of abortion praticed by charlatans and the “ye olde tricot crochet”….
The sad reality is that there is roughly one abortion in the United States for every 4 live births. Figuring an average of two live births per couple, that would mean that if all pregnancies that currently end in abortion instead resulted in an adoption, we would need approximately one adoption per two couples.
If you go by what the Bible actually says, is that life begins when the baby has a circulatory system- “blood is the life”. So, no about the ‘putting the baby in the mother.
And also, in biblical times they thought that a whole baby came out of father, because they didn’t know that half of it comes from the dad and half from the mom.
This is why Jacob and Esau had different mothers, because when one wouldn’t get ‘with child’, he went for the servant, who got pregnant. Because the people of that time didn’t know anything about biology- we know that a ‘whole baby’ doesn’t get put into the mother, the mix happens and the development happens for weeks before it’s a baby.
No I didn’t; since casual bets placed on internet comments boards are legally binding contracts, you were up a million as soon as Moms clicked “Add Comment”! No worries; I’m sure it’ll be in your PayPal account by morning!
Some ppl just haven’t heard about the Onion News Network. We were watching ONN briefly with some friends over and they started trippin’ out, thinking it may have been real. The anchorwoman is pretty serious seeming…
Before you get indignant and repost with your rage, though, it behooves you to read more than the headline and maybe even check the source out.
These people aren’t guilty of failing to read closely, they’re guilty of falling for their horrible prejudices and ignorance about PP. It’s fine if you are informed and still disagree, but they’re willing to believe any terrible thing they hear. That’s way leads to very dark places. We’ve seen it many times in human history.
a lot of people are too lazy to be informed. it’s much easier to make a token effort to ‘do research’ and find bogus info on the innernetz (or the teevee) to support their delusions. altho i personally think more blame attaches to the ‘gurus’ who put this false information out there.
Fìrst, regardless of how much effort people put into doing research or what sources they consult, it is a basic human instinct to believe things that agree with your existing opinions and to discount the validity of things which disagree with them. So I think that most people do change change their minds when researching a contentious issue; they simply search for more support for their pre-existing convictions.
Second, I think that all the blame resides with the reflexive forwarder/reposter/copypaster, and not with the source “guru.” You;re responsible for the content of your speech, whether or not you are merely parroting someone else’s words.
“Given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe its true, or because they’re afraid it might be true. Peoples’ heads are full of knowledge, facts and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool.” – Terry Goodkind, The Wizard’s first rule
Wait…did you just use being lazy as an excuse for ignorance?
I guess all of those years spent paying attention in – and working hard for – good grades in school were wasted! I could have just the first line in my text books and then claimed that “everyone else was doing it and it’s OK because ignorance is widely accepted”!?
Boy, do I have egg on my face! :-O
Um, aren’t “Christians” really just “one guy and his followers”, by definition? I mean, yeah, different guy, but still… that expression doesn’t mean much.
Now, had you pointed out, “it’s just a very small fraction of all Christians”, you’d have had a nice, sensible point.
er, doesn’t ‘the second coming of christ,’ ‘the rapture,’ ‘judgement day,’ and the other similar terms imply Judeo-christian (or at least Abrahamic) religions?
I’m pro-life and I like the Onion. I “like” a pro-life organisation’s page and their logo is white and green. When the Onion first posted this article, I thought it was from them. But, like most sane people, I clicked on the article and within two sentences knew it was from the Onion.
And I lol-ed so hard.
The funny thing is, i you follow that logic all the way then any second you spend not pregnant/having unprotected sex is a silent killer. You could be making babies right now! Why aren’t you!
Contraception is wrong, because it means that potential lives are knowingly never allowed to be. The same logic means that males masturbating is wrong.
Doesn’t that mean that a female not getting laid for a menstrual cycle is wrong?
Oh Teabaggers and their misconceptions of healthcare. When I visited Washington I suggested to one of them they visit the UK and see what nationalised healthcare is actually like. Her response was this,
I don’t know if “insult” is the right word; it appears to be an implication that it is a fact that Canada’s health care system categorizes 100% of tonsillectomies and appendectomies as elective, and therefore every Canadian needing one of these procedures will be forced to pay for them out-of-pocket.
Of course, Susie gave no assurance that she had actually been to Canada (either for a quick visit, or to every hospital in the country) and seen this for herself, so it would be most reasonable to assume that she has not, and she’s trying to shoot down someone else’s argument as unfounded while presenting her own just-as-unfounded argument, but allowing the reader to make the assumption that she has “been there.”
It’s not too surprising; her previous posts show that she’s a Christian pro-Lifer, and the arguments for those religious viewpoints are not based on logic anyway; they’re based on personal conviction.
But your response was no clearer; were you trying to say that, as a Canadian, you can contradict her ridiculous-seeming claim?
I’m appalled that the site would even create an article like that, just for the shock value. This would never be acceptable in Philadelphia, where I was born and raised. I remember one time, I was chillin’ out on the basketball(the game) courts at the playground(which is where I spent most of my days), when I a couple of guys, who were notorious for starting trouble in my neighborhood, approached me. They were pro-choice and I’m obviously pro-life. We argued the topic then it got physical. This had been the first fight I was involved in and my mom got scared, so she sent me to my auntie and uncle in Bel-Air.
That was at least 40 years ago, and I’m just so outraged by this article!!! I MEAN WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD JOKE ABOUT ABORTION?!?! ABORTION IS NOT FUNNY AT ALL! IT’S JUST NOT FUNN–HNNNNNNGGGHHHH!!
1. 1990 was not “almost 40 years ago.”
2. Might have been funny if you went for a Schwarzenegger reference instead. Or maybe Bristol or Sarah Palin (depending on whom you believe to be the mother).
Making abortion illegal would only make things worse. I would never have an abortion myself, as I would never forgive myself, but I wouldn’t make it against the law. Women would still have them, they would just be in back rooms, with coat hangers. Can we say infection?
That being said, why does no one consider adoption? There are people that want babies. There are people who would want YOUR baby. Why kill it if it has a chance to be loved?
The ones that stay there until they’re 18 are ones brought in from social services usually over the age of 5. Babies and toddlers put up for adoption are adopted from the thousands on waiting lists.
Is it fair that people only want babies? Not really but understandable.
I agree. People think that if they’re over a certain age and not adopted, they must have horrible behavioral issues, but most times, that’s not the case.
- I’d be traumatized knowing I have child I’ll never see because I gave him away. Just because I think the time is not right for me to have children doesn’t mean I wouldn’t love my children if I had them. I’m not even going to assume you can understand that seeing as you seem to think of babies as trade goods.
- Most adopted kids have issues – “Who are my biological parents, where do I come from? Why didn’t they want me? What would my life be like if they had raised me? Should I try to meet them, could I even find them in the first place? I wonder if I ever crossed passed with my biological mother without even knowing because I don’t know what she looks like. That new teacher has the same eyes as me, could she be my mom?”
If you think about abortion as killing, then putting a child for adoption is better than abortion. But if you think of abortion as nothing more than not creating a child, then abortion seems better.
- “Why kill it?” – I don’t think I’m killing a child by aborting in the first place, so there you go. As for “There are people who would want YOUR baby” – that’s just creepy. Seriously, tell me you people are doing something better than plain human traffic after you just wrote this sentence.
That would be fine if the system weren’t already overcrowded (BTW, you would know your adoption argument has already been mentioned several times had you actually read any of the other comments)
A good friend of mine from when I was in elementary school had been in the system her entire life. She wasn’t adopted as a baby, as a toddler, as a pre-teen or as a teen ager. She was bounced between foster home to foster home and was abused at a few of them, neglected at others. She is currently 20 years old and was never EVER offered a home. She was depressed for the majority of her life, and honestly felt like she didn’t belong anywhere. We are no longer on good terms because she has decided that if no one wants anything to do with her, she doesn’t want anything to do with anyone else. She ended our friendship by telling me that she wished she hadn’t been born, and that she “was sure everyone else did too.”
I don’t know if you or the other people who push adoption instead of abortion realize these type of cases exist, or if you just don’t want to admit they do.
They’re right! America is going to hell, but it’s because dumb s***’s like them can’t read past the title of an article so obviously made up as this one… Gotta love ‘Merica.
Why do we need an 8-billion dollar anything? No wonder we are in so much debt. And don’t we have enough ways to kill innocent babies who have done nothing wrong? I mean if the parents would not have slept together they would not have the baby. It’s called keeping it in your pants until you are ready to have a child!
Now, now. Don’t get upset at “Miss”. It is not her fault. The current US education system is merely too focused on test scores and firing teachers to teach individuals valuable life skills, in this case, common sense.
While I do think the educatin system has declined you should read what I wrote below about trying to prove a point. That point being it seems the world hates people who are against abortion. And I have common sense, but schools don’t teach that.
Yay people keep proving me right! Once again my thoughts on reactions are right. I knew that if I posted something agreeing with the people in the post that people would think I was with them and believed in the article. Oh how good it feels to know people will react the way you think they will. Thanks for being sterotypical.
How is thinking people who say stupid things are stupid stereotypical? We’re perhaps a little gullible, although the level of stupidity you displayed is hardly unusual for pro-lifers.
One Internets for a successful troll. Minus one Internets for ruining it by pointing it out to everyone who replied to you.
You’re too kind. I’d have put her at minus one internets, not zero.
Also, Miss, the only stereotype that was fulfilled was feeding the troll (in this case: you). Honestly, I see much more hate and strong emotions from pro-life than pro-choice people. I have to agree that the trolling was well done, though. Also, you can’t really say the most patient person in this thread so far has answered with hate (if anything, he kind of trolled you back). He even insults with politeness.
You don’t want to be like me. I have done many terrible things in my time…
Of course, I did them very politely. Each civilization I incinerated from orbit went out thinking I was a very nice young person, and they hoped their children would be charred beyond recognition into a shape somewhat resembling me.
As for being my padawan, do you have access to a SNES?
Oh, Master, most surely I do! Just don’t say it’s the next thing I’ll be hoping to look like you. No charring it, if you may. It’s one of the few treasures this padawan of yours managed to keep. (aside from a NES with the pistol…)
I don’t care about your internets so you can keep them. I’ve seen the horrible comments that get “over 9000 internets” and I don’t want to be in that group. I’m not a troll. Again just wondering why some groups are hated and others are loved.
You were a troll, in your comment. You said something explicitly for the purpose of attracting strong (which means usually negative) responses from people. Then you shrugged them off saying that you already expected that. Thing is: you baited for exactly the kind of reply you wanted, to get exactly the kind of people you wanted to criticize. I’m not sure you succeeded there, because some of the replies were not against your ideals, but against the lack of attention you emulated by meaning you didn’t read the article and didn’t know it was fake.
If your message had been more on the lines of “I know The Onion is fake, but I agree wholeheartedly with the opinions they expressed.” the replies would have been different, beginning a discussion on abortion and not on idiocy. Also, if one of the replies was hateful, you would have an example to confirm your theory that pro-lifers are hated.
I have many friends who are pro-life, most of my family is as well, and I risk saying my country is too. Our president almost lost a lot of support (before she was elected) because people thought she was pro-choice. Maybe she is, but she had to say she wouldn’t put this discussion forth during her mandate. So, no hate here.
Also, I see much more hate coming from pro-lifers than from pro-choicers. “You” are the ones who picket in front of clinics yelling at people, who oppress women who had abortions or are pregnant and make them feel worse in their already fragile emotional state, who say “we’re” m*rd*rers and all. But that’s only what I read in the news. Maybe pro-choicers do a lot of bad things too. And I’d hate to be generalized with them if they did. Like you disliked being grouped with the idiotic people who yelled at The Onion without reading it and seeing it was a joke.
So, if you were called stupid after people noticed your bait, it was more about how you did your trolling than on what your beliefs really are.
Too harsh? Well I take that back. One guy commented that I deserved to be r*ped because I did not think abortion was right and it got put through. How they let that slide I still have no idea! Even people who dissagreed with me said that was uncalled for.
Discussions about beliefs tend to be emotional, and it’s hard to keep a level head. Or people don’t even want to. So I always enter them knowing it’ll bring out the worst in everyone, and willing to forget all about it after the discussion ends.
So, it’ll be good to end a discussion with us agreeing. : ) At least agreeing that such a comment is uncalled for. It doesn’t solve any of our issues, though. : P
I was actually talking about how the pro-choice people think all pro-life people are idiots, which you prove again. I’m not stupid, just trying to figure out why some groups are picked on.
From experience, pro-life arguments are often idiotic. Not to say all pro-lifers are idiots, but it’s definitely not uncommon to come across pro-lifers who are as idiotic as your comment.
Thus, it’s not really inappropriate to assume that an idiotic comment, which falls within the established realm of idiocy for the group of which the commenter claims to be a member, is genuine.
So if I say from experiecne all Muslims are terroists it’s OK for me to assume they all are? Even though there are plenty out there who are nice and not terroists? I still say not all pro-life people are idiots so you need a new image of them. All I’m saying is you can’t judge people just because of one thing.
It’s interesting how, in making your point, you’re willing to completely ignore what people are saying to you.
To use your analogy, from experience, there are terrorists who are Muslim. Thus, when someone is observed yelling “death to infidels, praise Allah” before detonating a bomb in a crowded venue, it’s reasonable to assume this person is both a terrorist and Muslim, rather than going to great lengths to teach me a lesson about my own prejudice.
You really should learn to read before you try to educate people.
I’d even say that the tiniest part of them have anything to do with t*rror, and perhaps the smallest part of pro-lifers are idiots. The prejudice is built because both the Muslims who are terr*rists and the pro-lifers who are idiots are the loudest.
did you just say she's... nevermind. you're the master!
██░░██░░░░░█░░░
██░░██░░░░█░█░░
██████░░░█░░█░░
██░░██░░██████░
██░░██░█░░░░░░█ (only one because I can’t find a generator for whatever the fùck this is called)
People advocating abstinence make me kinda stabby. I went through puberty at 10, am currently 30 and have no immediate plans to form babby. Why would I keep it in my pants for 20 years when there are some pretty reliable birth control options out there. And if one more person suggests “keeping legs closed” I’m gonna start making a list of sex positions that allow me to do just that.
As soon as the so-called pro-lifers begin adopting and caring for the millions of un-wanted children in the world, I may listen to them. But, you know, they only want blonde, blue eyed cute Nordic babies, not one of, pardon the expression, “THEM.”
Abortion is not about the embryos anyway, it’s about who owns and controls a woman’s body. The State, the church, her husband, whoever. What about the concept that a woman owns and controls her bodY?
In a free and equal society abortion should not even be a topic for discussion. If the female is able to get pregnant, she should be able to get an abortion if she wishes, without any stigma.
Wait, Little_Elmo – so that umbilical cord, placenta formed from the Mother’s tissue, shared blood, food and nutrient supply are not the Mum’s!? Mayo Clinic book publishers are going to get a call from me!
The blood supply is not shared. If a mom is A+ and a dad is B+, the baby they create would be AB+. Those 2 separate, individual blood streams could not possibly be shared. Yes, the baby needs the mother to provide the nourishment. So what? Would you say a breastfed baby was a part of the mother, since it shares her nutrients?
The body of the baby, the part that is alive and would thus be killed during an abortion, is a separate person. NOT a part of the mother.
It could actually have AB-, A+, B+, A-, B-, O+ and O- blood type too, you know that, right?
So in your opinion, from the point where it has a circulatory system and blood, it’s considered a baby’s body and thus should not be killed? That would be by around day 20-22 from conception.
Well, for me, it’s when it has brainwaves. For my boyfriend, it’s when it can act human (namely be able to talk), until then it’s no different from a cat, dog, or cow.
Yes, I corrected myself down there somewhere, saying it isn’t actually brainwaves what matter, but what it’s done with them. Personally I wouldn’t go past 6 weeks, but I don’t have much scientific data to back this up and I don’t go anywhere close to intending to define the line.
As for my boyfriend, he doesn’t consider it abortion, but he doesn’t consider the baby a full person either, he values much more the rights of the mother. He doesn’t support infanticide (of course!), but he really could care less about where the line for abortion is drawn. As long as it’s not so early as to hinder choice.
Sentience comes with a responsibility on our part to respect certain rights. Which rights are up for debate. If you choose a point before the child can be considered sentient, then there’s no issue – you’re merely breaking apart cells. After that, the issue becomes more complex, but that doesn’t mean I would worry about the baby instead of the mother. Can I not worry about both?
The mother, being fully sentient and self aware, would obviously have more rights. Her choice would take precedence, particularly in the early days when sentience is simple.
How can you even be sure there is a point when they are not sentient? I really don’t think even the best medical science is advanced enough to check for brainwaves of a fetus at or shortly after conception. The closest measurable brainwaves have been said to occur at around 40 days, but even then it’s uncertain if that is a mark of sentience or not. The point is, if you can’t know, how can you say it as a fact?
realistically, who gives a flying fart at a rolling doughnut about sentience – the bottom line is this, “do you want this baby?” and “can you afford this baby?” If either answer is no – what are you Pro-Life morons gonna do? I really can visualize the barren Iowa couple adopted a crack-baby from Baltimore. It’s just what they always wanted!
the baby does not magically form as a baby the first day it is conceived.
At the beggining, it’s a mass of duplicated cells. then it splits in two different species of cells, half form the fetus and half the amniac sack.
From THEN on, the fetus’s cells split to three different kind of cells: endo-meso and epithelium cells.
THEN ON the endothelium cells will start moving to form something like a straw- which THEN will form something like a flower, flower being the brain.
In several weeks’ time.
FACTS, studied them.
But that’s not the point!
If you really want to save money from supporting unemployed, single moms and stuff:
Give condom discount to young couples-ESPECAILLY TEENS.
TEACH THEM goddamit! Teach them to use condoms properly.
TEACH the priests to preach about protection in church.
Not abstinence, kids have hormones, have urges and curiosity.
Knowledge is power.
Prevernt abortion by preventing unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.
PREVENTION works a heck of a lot better if teens have good access and education when it comes to birth control.
If society was more equal in terms of sexual roles and power, and if kids and adults both had more access and the ability to control this, you’d see a huge drop in unwanted pregnancies. That’s why birth rates ALWAYS drop in a society when women become more educated – suddenly, the role of women in society is not simply that of child-bearing mothers, and they delay having children longer as a society until they can AFFORD to have them.
Yes, the embryo/fetus has its own “body,” which is initially an undifferentiated mass of cells. Which is also entirely dependent on the woman’s body for oxygen and nourishment.
Next time you find a tick on you, LEAVE IT ALONE! It has its own body, after all.
There is no such thing as inherent rights. We afford rights based on certain, hopefully objective, criteria. There is nothing in human DNA which says “This organism has an inherent right to life. Please do not kill it.”
Certain humans, as in, those who can actually think and participate in society versus those who are still a bunch of disorganized cells and don’t have a clue about what the world is? Is it okay that the said right to life enslaves a formed and active human being?
After all, it’s her body the fetus is feeding from, it’s her body that will deform, it’s her body that will grow and become irrecognizable, it’s her mind that will have post-birth depression, it’s her eyes that will get bags from sleepless nights either from caring for an unwanted baby or for worrying about a baby that was given up, it’s her self-esteem that will go rock bottom.
“those who can actually think and participate in society”
Using that definition, infants do not have a right to life.
I’ve been pregnant twice. Given birth twice. Yet I was never a “slave” to anyone or anything. And my body was never “irrecognizable”, nor has my self-esteem been impacted.
You should really not speak about things you don’t know.
I don’t even think I’ve ever heard any of the moms on “16 and pregnant” say they felt like a slave. Yes, they do say that it’s difficult being a mom at a young age, but then they go on to say “…so I wish I had waited to have sex.” At the very least, be protected.
Humans should have a right to life. I agree. I also think that many other species should enjoy that right, but that’s a discussion for another time.
As I said, though, this is because human beings are sentient. They are aware of their existence, and can feel pain, and fear death. The DNA patterns of an organism are irrelevant, and entirely arbitrary. There may be life on other planets which deserves the same right and doesn’t even have DNA as it exists on Earth.
We assign rights by valuable, sensible criteria, not by completely arbitrary traits which those we assign rights to have in common. Learn how ethics works before responding next time.
Actually, we assign rights based on “You’re a human. Boom, rights!”. The problem is the definition of what a “human” actually is. It should be based on what species you are, and on that alone.
In some countries, women still aren’t considered humans. They don’t have all the rights men (“humans”) have. Not too long ago, black people weren’t considered humans, even in developed countries. Yet we know that they are and have always been. More people just need to realize that before birth, we’re still human.
What does being human have to do with anything? It’s a completely arbitrary measure, and irrelevant in any ethical discussion. The important thing is what being human gives us – sentience, the capacity to feel pain, concern over what happens to us and our bodies. You can’t merely insist that humans have inherent rights. Defend your position, or yield.
Your comment demonstrates the exact opposite of what you’re trying to say. It’s not based on being human, having rights. Most societies that have notions of species will agree that women are of the same species as men, and that people from different races are also homo sapiens sapiens. But they still won’t have rights, because they’re “inferior”.
In our world, rights come with value. I’d hope it comes with sentience as Ben has been saying, because then, if we could find and prove that any other species in the planet is sentient they’d be inherently rightful, just like us humans.
When we prove that dolphins are more intelligent than us, I hope we’ll give them the right to vote as well (and then hopefully we’d get more people concerned about the islands of plastic in the pacific).
Why do you insist on assuming inherent rights based on something which is a purely abstract concept created by humans which doesn’t correlate well to the real world?
Being seen as “inferior” is the same as being considered “less than human” or even not human at all. Thus women are not being given basic human rights in countries where they are not seen as equal.
That’s only your understanding of the situation. You’d have to go there and ask them what their reasoning is to give us less rights. Give me an article saying that they don’t consider us humans and I’ll believe you. Otherwise, I know for a fact that there are universities and scientists in countries where women have less rights, like Iran, and they include women among homo sapiens sapiens.
It’s what goes on inside the female minds (or derived alleged attitudes) that is less valued. Not what goes on the DNA or the material of the skin.
Clearly they get that we’re the same species. I didn’t say they didn’t know what a species was. (I also have a comment above this one that is “awaiting moderation”).
I said it’s the way “human” is being defined as far as rights are concerned. Those countries still have what they consider “basic human rights”, but women don’t partake in those, making us not human under the law.
Still the same species, not the same under the law.
Same species, no human rights.
Get it now?
“Clearly they get that we’re the same species. I didn’t say they didn’t know what a species was.”
Given that your definition of what a human is is based entirely on DNA, your definition of “human” is based on the concept of a species (which, I should point out, is a human-made concept which is fairly arbitrary and very grey in real life).
So, we have a situation where a country considers women to be human, but does not afford them basic human rights. The only logical conclusion is that this country does not respect basic human rights.
How is being a species a “human-made concept”? Because it was a human who discovered we have a species and that not every animal is the same thing? That would be human-discovered, but not human-made. No human created us as an individual species. Whether you believe it was a God or an explosion, or some other theory, is irrelevant. It wasn’t a human.
Now, I define being human as being the species human. The law defines it differently depending on where you go. So while you may have misinterpreted it, what I said stands.
Little_Emo, it’s a fuzzy concept as in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem It is pretty much human-made, not human-discovered. We built the concept from observation, but it’s still fuzzy enough not to be a really precise concept (would a human and a chimpanzee be able to generate offspring?).
Also, I would say that the concept of human rights is 100% human-made. You think that it means everyone from the human “species” would be entitled to it. In the Declaration of Human Rights nothing is said about what it means to be human as far as the bill is concerned. Lots of people (and countries) don’t consider a bunch of cells that are alive and have human DNA to be a person, or worthy of rights. It takes weeks before that bunch of cells, or should I say, that small tumor, begins taking human characteristics, according to their standard.
That’s why I said that the concept of human you’re using is in your head. You can defend that this is how you think it should be. Also, countries that have really strong laws discriminating women and such are most likely not caring for human rights at all, since there are many other aspects on that Declaration that involves individuals from both genders and surely all races, that they don’t respect. I don’t think the problem lies with their concept of “human”, but rather with their concept of “rights”.
I have stated numerous times that, yes, it is my opinion that it should be based on species. Read it again. Should be, not is. Not will be, not would be, not has been. Should be. Should. My opinion. So your stating that “That is just how you see it, that’s only your perception, etc.” Yes, of course it is. I said that all along.
Actually, what you’ve done is assert that there exist intrinsic rights which are afforded on the basis of one’s DNA patterns.
Now, we’ve made the leap to acknowledging that this is your opinion of how things should be. This is a step forward.
What happens now is that you read back over the criticisms of your opinion, and defend it. This is what you have thus far failed to do. All you’ve done is reassert, as absolute fact, your unfounded and heavily criticised position.
Opinions can be right and wrong. When one attempts to force their own opinion on others, this distinction becomes vital.
No, I said we afford rights based on whether someone is “human” under the law. (That would be, being born, in case you didn’t understand). You’ve agreed with that part.
Otherwise, everything I said was stated as though it was my own opinion. I never asked (or tried to force) you to agree with my opinion. I just stated it. Just as you say I have no right to try to force you to take on my opinion, you have no right to try to force me to accept yours, whether or not yours may be the one currently held by the law. I don’t have to agree with you that because it is legal to abort, that that makes it right or ok.
I could quote you, but forget that. We’re onto the “this is opinion” phase. Good work.
Now, you are attempting to force your opinion on others. I assume that you are able to vote, and that when you do, a candidate’s stance on abortion is an important factor to you. You’ve made your stance clear, and people generally vote for candidates who hold the same position as they do, so in that regard, I assume you are attempting to force your opinion on others.
Beyond assumption, you’ve been arguing restlessly throughout this thread. It is quite clear that you disapprove of abortion, and you keep arguing the point. This is not the behaviour of someone with a “live and let live” attitude. You are trying to change peoples’ minds, and influence their behaviour.
To preempt you, yes, I am also trying to change peoples’ minds, and by my own argument, to force my opinion onto others. The difference between you and me is that your opinion also carries with it certain actions. Your opinion would force women to deal with pregnancy a certain way (that is, to carry to term). My opinion would give all women the choice, to abort or not to abort.
You will no doubt say that my opinion also has an impact on the fetus, and this is perfectly true. This is why we are having this discussion. I maintain that sentience is a requirement for the assignment of rights, while you would choose to do it on the basis of DNA alone.
If you wish to discontinue this discussion, I will not take it as a concession. This is getting quite lengthy, and I assume we both have other responsibilities. I will probably discontinue this discussion myself in the next few posts if it does not progress.
“Little_Emo May 23, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Does it have human DNA, which comes equipped with an inherent right to life?”
This is one of the things you said that brought this part of the discussion up. You said it like it is the truth: human DNA comes equipped with a right to life – but it’s you who think that, and I was trying to make you notice it. I’m glad we got that settled.
Human DNA doesn’t come equipped with rights in our society, and I don’t even think it should, because this is simply too broad for me. Lots of things have human DNA. Tumors do, babies who are absorbed by their twins do, babies with serious illnesses do, not to mention embryo cells and the HeLa cells, which have been reproduced endlessly up to today. And if you’re going to give concessions to any of those situations (like fetuses with serious congenital defects), then the criteria for rights is no longer simply the presence of human DNA. This is the grey area that surrounds the discussion of abortion. The law is giving human rights to born humans (I’m talking about places where abortion is allowed) and stretches it into the unborn humans a bit, gladly not enough to hinder too much the rights of the born human that is caring for it. It’s then that we appeal to science, because, honestly, the government can’t, or shouldn’t, choose from the many beliefs about soul and life. We can’t test that, and we can’t prove that one of the religions is correct in detriment of the others.
I wouldn’t mind continuing this discussion, even more so because I only come around once a day, or less, but I understand if any of you wish to discontinue it. And of course it won’t mean a “defeat”. As I see it, there’s no winning and defeating in discussing – only growing in knowledge for both sides.
The DNA of cancerous cells is most definitely human. Same with all other human cells. Yet we do not afford rights to these cells. We give rights to fully formed, active human beings who are capable of feeling pain, pleasure, and emotion. Which doesn’t apply to zygotes, embryos, or early fetuses.
How early are we talking here, where you think a fetus fits none of those criteria?
- Fully formed, ok, so by approximately 12 weeks gestation. Is that not early?
- Active? Well, a woman can start to feel kicking somewhere around 16-ish weeks. It’s faint, but it’s there. Before that, it’s merely a case of the baby not being big enough for it to be felt by the mother, but there is active movement none-the-less.
- Human beings, well, got that by default since no woman has ever carried any other species inside her.
- Capable of feeling pain. Proven to be at least as early as 22 weeks.
- Feeling pleasure and/or emotion, well, we know a newborn infant feels a sort of pleasure after being fed or having a messy diaper changed. More a feeling of comfort, really. Beyond that, nothing can really be proven as far as newborns feeling “emotions”. And no one really knows when that starts, but it doesn’t just switch on at birth.
Personally, I think 12 weeks is good enough to draw the line. 3 months is usually enough for a woman to notice pregnancy (not sure about making her mind, though). But I’m not a doctor, or scientist, or anything, it’s just where I would draw my line if I ever had to make an abortion, because I’d err on the side of caution. Ideally, I would have done it no later than the 5th week.
But, since I’m not a doctor or scientist as previously mentioned, nor a woman who is pregnant for more than 12 weeks and still doesn’t feel the fetus, doesn’t relate to it, and doesn’t want it… I won’t make this call. I’ll leave it for others who understand the process better than me.
That’s part of being pro-choice. I don’t even intend to have all of the knowledge required to be making choices for other people. Be it personal or scientific knowledge.
Not to mention, if you listen closely to the ‘don’t abort, give away for abortion’ freaks, you’ll realize they go for babies like zombies for brains. Well, that’s what they sound like at least.
They actually don’t treat babies respectfully, ethically or humanely. To them, babies are items you trade and exchange. They just oppose abortion not because they care about babies but because their god says abortion is bad.
And they know it. That’s why in the ‘pro-life vs. pro-choice’ debate they don’t adopt a condescending ‘I’m a better person than you’ attitude, unlike other debates they engage in.
I had a friend in high school who gave her baby up for adoption, and this screwed her up. I had a condom break and got pregnant when I was a young adult, and an abortion followed a few months later. I never felt guilty, and I know it was the right decision. Abortion should never be up for debate. EVER! Someone who is against abortion won’t be forced to do it. Because of this, someone who choses abortion should never be prevented from seeking one or made to feel shame or guilt.
Frankly, when a woman says she aborted, I have no issue with it. When she aborted and starts questioning her decision, I support her so she doesn’t start to regret it.
But some people think it’s better to help her to feel guilty, and then to say to everyone else “see, I told you, most women who abort end up regretting it!”.
You might try reading factual articles rather than the Onion, then. Tax dollars don’t go towards abortions when it comes to funding groups like Planned Parenthood – the money they get from taxpayers is for health services and cannot be used for abortion services.
This image has the first comment lopped off. Here is another pic:
i.imgur dot com/p4CFW dot png
You will notice the FIRST post was from the theblaze.com’s Facebook post.
The Blaze is a Glenn Beck website.
They still have the post up, but it says that the Onion piece is satire.
theblaze dot com/blog/2011/05/18/planned-parenthood-opens-8-billion-abortionplex/
Did they ALWAYS say that and their readers are stupid, or did they just change it and they are even more stupid than their readers?
“Buying contraception, which is a silent abortion, is keeping planned parenthood alive. We can take this beast down by repenting. War is a punishment for men’s sins. Wakeup America and repent.”
lolol Planned Parenthood gives contraception out for free, so buying a condom would kinda diminish the need for PP. and did the onion also run a report about war being punishment for men’s sins? coulda sworn war was the sin…. WEEEEE Triple Fail!
how about all those in favor of abortions keep having them and those not in favor don’t and after a few generations = debate solved thru self annihilation.
Equality,
You are in the very least intelligent enough to know that people who believe abortion should be a woman’s choice are also parents, grandparents and fathers among young men and women whom do not have children…right? Please tell me you’re not ignorant enough to believe that all pro-choice people have no children.
lol what Titanic was that one person watching? That movie was like 3 hours long of boring drivel and everyone dies at the end. so I guess that person is for abortion and would probably even wait in a 3 hour line for one?
I don’t see what you people are whining about. It’s her body and her mind so let her do with it as she pleases. And technically you aren’t considered “alive” until you are born because at three months NO human fetus can survive outside the womb. Late term abortions are a different story and should only be used if the child is killing the mother (unless you pro-life fools would like to have both the mother and child die).
And Planned Parenthood also prevents the need for abortions by handing out CONTRACEPTIVES and gives screenings for cancer and STDs including the big killer HIV/AIDS. Don’t down them because you don’t agree with one thing that they provide.
Besides all that, this article was funny. All those people re-posting the article and screaming nonsense. Get your Bible’s out your rears and actually read it. What these women do with their wombs and what floats in them should be between her and her god.
It’s things like this that make me suggest a mandatory “Meet The Onion” assembly in all schools. You know, so people can learn early on what The Onion is?
Of course, if The Onion runs the assemblies, they’d just troll entire schools at once. Someone bring a video camera!
Oh, oh, my stomach hurts from laughing. “Women are so stupid to fall for this.”
It is just unBELIEVEable how willfully ignorant and credulous your average ProLife true believer is — it was nice of them to take time out from waiting for the Rapture to reply to this — bless their tiny little intolerant hearts
Hahaha while I don’t want to give an “Amen to that”, I gotta admit it’s awesome to know there are pro-choice Christians. Btw I’m a pro-life agnostic, but I respect opinions (I wouldn’t be agnostic if I didn’t lol)
Hah, thanks. And I’m a lady, too! My feelings on the matter are based on the fact that it’s someone else’s body and situation. Abortion is impossible to argue over because there’s no way to generalize a situation in which it may or may not be the better option. Oh, and I’m a preacher’s kid. Breaking a stereotype, what’s up?
Oh, my sweet summer child, what do you know of fear? Fear is for the winter, my little lord, when the snows fall a hundred feet deep and the ice wind comes howling out of the north. Fear is for the long night, when the sun hides its face for years at a time, and little children are born and live and die all in darkness while the direwolves grow gaunt and hungry, and the white walkers move through the woods” – Lord Snow
Actually, abortions have been recorded throughout history. The first ever recorded abortion was guessed to be from the diminishing greek city states to the early roman empire. While their methods were considered to be primitive to our standards today, it still counts as an abortion itself.
Wow… Those reactions… Lol what are they complaining about? There is nothing wrong with it… Once again, I’m glad I live in the Netherlands, where all women can get an abortion and where gay people can marry and stuff and where we can curse all we want =D
Abortionplex! Maybe if I start trying now I can get in sometime this summer! I’m so glad Planned Parenthood finally rethought their mission and is now more focused on abortion, which really is the only valuable service they provide. Now I don’t even need to take the free condoms when I go in or listen to any of their nonsense about other forms of birth control and practicing safe sex. Who needs it anyway?
Really people? Maybe you should pay a visit to any Planned Parenthood location and learn a little bit about what they do. I promise you won’t burst into flames the second you walk through the door. Also, those of you who preach abstinence only, when has that EVER worked? I promise it never will. You can’t change the fact that people have sex, so instead why don’t you focus on educating your children about it? Or, if you won’t, at least allow Planned Parenthood to do it for you.
And yes, accidents do happen, I don’t try to deny that in the least. So, for future reference, when anyone other than me has any say in what grows in my uterus please let me know so I can start planning the revolution.
Really who would ever believe that this could be built in Topeka, KS with Phelps marching around this would never even get close to happening. Not to mention the whole Kansas is extremely Republican.
It is a law that federal funds cannot be used for abortions. Only 3% of the services performed by PP are abortions. Not all PP locations provide abortion services. Please get educated about the facts America.
A living thing becomes conscious when it receives its soul and ki (and yes, even plants have these things). This happens at the time of the quickening. Many people believe that this takes place in the second trimester.
Until the time of the quickening, the body is a mere shell, it is the soul and ki that are alive. If that shell were fated to be unloved, or so badly damaged that the soul inside it were going to be forced to live in pain, would it be fair to condemn that soul to such torment when it could find a much more suitable environment at a later time?
I think we should leave this question to science. Not to disrespect your beliefs, but they don’t have a place in law or government policy. The same is true of any non-secular belief.
I believe he knew exactly what he was doing. If Christians alone are to influence the legislation regarding abortion, that would mean unequal protection of those who have other beliefs about the soul of a fetus, violating the 14th amendment. We can’t let beliefs influence legislation, as people not of those beliefs are essentially discriminated against.
same was said about ancient Rome government. that is a horrible way to determine whether it actually works or not. Tossing out science is stupid, just as tossing out religion is stupid. its ridiculous to hear that people say your world view should effect science, when the ones saying that are using their own world view to come to that conclusion…
I never said anything about tossing out religion. I am merely pointing out that, to date, scientific inquiry has done more to raise standards of living and quality of life than anything else. That’s a pretty good indicator that it works.
The funny thing about science, though, is that if it doesn’t work, it changes so that it works. It’s self-correcting. This is the very nature of science.
HAHA There’s a better way than spending all that money for efficiency. Just give patients abortion pills (yes that is real, no it is not the same as plan B), then they can go home and have the abortion over the toilet. It really is much more efficient, and less costly for the state!
wow that was painfully funny, and saddening that those people are so gullible. Im wondering if they are just looking for something to jump on the conservatives must destroy this… bus for.
I just love how one person talks about how stuff like condoms and birth control pills are bad. What else is everyone supposed to use when they’re 16 doing the woohoo dance?
as far as im concerened im pro choice, also as my brother once said when asked his oppinion on abortion- i am a guy i have no say in abortion it’s a woman’s choice what she does with her body. in a way i agree with this, but i believe if you are in a good relationship and able to suppost having a child you should not abort, and if in a stable relationship the man should have a say in what happens with his child
I love how they didn’t even bother to read the article.
i love you
They’re trolls. Trolls don’t read beyond the title.
If they were trolls, they’d only pretend they didn’t know what they were talking about. I doubt that was the case.
“I love the completely fabricated Mother Theresa quote.”
I love that they are comparing it to Auschwitz.
I love that this isn’t butter ^.^
“BUTTER MAKES EVERYTHING BETTER! ಠ_ಠ”
– Paula Deen
“Any quote should be checked and authenticated before it can be believed, especially is said quote is on the internet” – Henry VIII
“The problem with quotes on the internet is you never can be sure if they’re genuine.” – Abraham Lincoln
“C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!!!1!!one!!111″ – Oscar Wilde
“Whoa.” – Keanu Reeves
amidoinitrite?
I’ll be back to finish off Planned Parenthood later. I just have to count my extra children. – Arnold Schwarzenegger
“pudding.” — FailBook
d’Oh! – homer
I guess some people don’t realize that the Onion is a news lampoon. I mean this is a site that recently posted a news report that the last few minutes of the finally Harry Potter film was going to be split into 7 different movies.
It’s Reverse Poe’s Law.
some people are dumbasses
Brilliantly brilliant comment! Award to you.
DjDoDo
Your statement that
“Any quote should be checked and authenticated before it can be believed, especially is said quote is on the internet” – Henry VIII
is full of win.
^^^ Sent from the ICU at St. Fatima Hospital for Diabetics (AKA St. Fat’s for Fat)
“It’s better with butter”
- Julia Child
I can’t believe that.
Because getting rid of something without any feeling and gassing people causing them to die a horrible, extremely painful death are totally the same things!
YAY FOR IGNORANCE!!
ib4prolivevsprochoice
but I digress, I actually agree with u!
People against abortions are idiots that dont realize that abortion = money and no more fires and stuff. If they want to read thire “Bibel” all day long, let do. But if thehy want to stop us from aborting then they can jsut go kiss jesus!
#provokingreligiouspeople
Are you serious? Come on if you are going to go off on someone or their way of life at least learn how to spell so people might THINK you are educated.
*Facepalm*
*Double
There, fixed that for you.
Don’t feed the trolls.
I’m not going to argue anymore than this comment but depending on how far along the baby is it may be able to feel. And sin isn’t ranked, but as far as social injustice goes I would say the Holocaust was far worse than abortion.
And Noah needs to learn how to type because at least it will make him look just a little bit smart.
*Double Facepalm*
Sorry for my earlier correction…you got it, babe.
Read the full comment, specifically the last part:
#provokingreligiouspeople
And note how select easy words were misspelled but most of them (including commonly misspelled words) aren’t. It’s called trolling, and he even tagged it at the end, lol.
He even hyperexaggerated pro-choice rhetoric to make it even more infuriating. The misspellings were to ensure a reply. It was deliberate, and was intended to illicit a response from pro-lifers. He succeeded.
Would that then count as a ‘trollbait win’ or as a troll fail?
That would only make sense if only religious people pointed out spelling errors.
Both he and you are getting your spell-trolling mixed with your hateful-comment-trolling, and thereby managing to fail both.
Incorrect, there was indeed an irate response on both aspects. By using two trolling techniques simultaneously he pissed off two groups of people and got a response. Win for Multi-tasking troll!
Precisely.
*elicit…
Foeti grow pain receptors in around the 20th week – very few non-’serious-health-problem’ abortions happen past then.
I’m sure you could piss off a lot more people a lot more effectively if you used proper grammar…
Clearly not.
*Triple facepalm?*
*their
*bible
*just
please read what u just said out loud… you are ignorant of knowing whether an unborn child can actually feel it or not, or whether it’s alive or not.
YAY FOR IGNORANCE!
Sarcasm fail for 5 people. That was pretty funny. Or I should say
Taht is teh lolz nopE? Noaa is teh hellxa smart,\.
You’re so smart.
Most fetuses are aborted well before actual sentience, i.e. when they have a developed brain.
Hmm…let’s do some religious trolling…
Let’s talk about Johnny. He was a brilliant boy in school, getting As in his classes until 11th grade English. He graduated college, and then went on to get a Phd in biology. He worked hard and diligently in a research lab, and managed to devise a way to repair the genes in many genetic illnesses, curing thousands. He became very rich off of this, and later in life he became a small-scale philathropist, helping fund many other research groups looking for cures to cancer or AIDs. When he finally died, it made the news, and many people around the world were grateful for what he had accomplished in life.
Sadly, this never happened. Johnny was aborted as a fetus because his mother already had two children and didn’t want another one because then things would be annoying in resteraunt booths.
The end.
don’t quit your day job for a career in comedy.
Yep. People usually have abortions because they have enough kids already. I can tell you and “Johnny” don’t share an IQ
uh….you know that’s true, right? many people having abortions do indeed have kids already, or plan for kids in the future, maybe when not broke. i mean, seriously, this is mysterious for some people?
Now, let’s talk about Billy. Billy’s father, Frank, was an abusive drunk. His mother, Ellie, stayed with him out of fear. Frank was one day arrested after nearly beating Ellie to death. Due to his traumatic childhood, Billy had difficulty in school for many years, but later buckled down due to the influence of his school counsellor. He found that he really enjoyed science, and went to university to study physics. He went on to get a PhD in theoretical physics. He worked hard in a lab, conducting experiments and analysing the results. Having impressed his peers, he was given the opportunity to work at the largest particle accelerator of his day. He designed several experiments which allowed him to postulate a grand unifying theory, which was supported by all experiments to follow. He had solved the greatest mystery of modern science. He was awarded the Nobel Prize, and went on to make many important discoveries, one of which found applications in power generation which paved the way for clean energy.
Sadly, this never happened. Ellie left Frank before the relationship became too violent. She later married a man named Dave. She and Dave had three children, who grew up to be day labourers and help desk staff.
We make decisions every day which affect the future. The cure for cancer may have been wiped out a thousand times by someone being too afraid to ask out their crush. We can’t base all our decisions on the best possible outcome thirty years down the road. It’s physically impossible.
^indeed.
Then there’s also, of course, the story of little Bob. Bob was a brilliant boy at school, getting As in his classes until 11th grade English. At home, however, he had an abusive and drunk father, Frank, and a mother who stayed with Frank to be able to support her son. Bob graduated college, and then went on to get a Phd in biology. His mother, Kate, couldn’t attend his graduation ceremony because her bruised face would show too much. Bob became a biology teacher, helping build the young minds of the future, and often gave his students private lessons, where he started using his authority to abuse them, like his father had done before him. Eventually his mother died, due to a fall from the stairs, and Bob severed all ties to his previous life. Up to the end of his life, Bob was a good biology teacher, and nobody suspected that he abused little kids. He never married, but he did beat up a couple of his girlfriends. Due to his traumatic childhood, he was never able to relate to another human being.
Gladly, this never happened. Kate had an abortion as soon as she found out she was pregnant, and when Frank first threatened beating her, she left him. She then resumed her studies, got into college, went on to get a Phd in biology. She worked hard and diligently in a research lab, and managed to devise a way to repair the genes in many genetic illnesses, curing thousands. A few years later, Kate married a great physicist and they had a couple of adorable and beloved children. One of them, named Bob, designed several experiments which allowed him to postulate a grand unifying theory, which was supported by all experiments to follow. He won a Nobel prize and eventually became a small-scale philathropist, helping fund many other research groups looking for cures to cancer or AIDs.
Like Ben said, we make decisions every day which can affect the future in larger or smaller scale, and we don’t know the exact results of each decision.
Tl;dr
i love you.
Oioi, he’s taken!
Sure is grand that nobody aborted Stalin, or Manson, or Jim Jones, or Hermann Goering, or Kim Il-sung, or …..
Trolls have to eat too
Kay now let’s talk about Billy. Billy grew up to be a megalomaniacal dictator of an oil-rich South American banana republic and decided to wage war on his neighbors and ended up getting his country invaded by the United States Marines and they found out he had a killing room in his Presidential palace where he was marching a dozen little boys in each day, violently raping them and then chopping their heads off. Except he didn’t because he was aborted.
Nessie,
I like your argument, but note that it could just as easily be used as an argument against not having 15+ kids, since each kid you decide not to have is a potential person that is prevented from existing.
Indeed. Every action we ever take could be preventing someone from existing.
We just can’t live on that basis. We deal with the here, the now, and the future as we can plan it. Believing you have the power to decide which people are going to exist or not is absurd. You can decide for your own life, and for the life of the people who are living around you, and what you think is right.
I think it’s really self-centered to believe in any sort of religion and think that you’re able to make a difference in who is born or not. If someone is supposed to exist, they will, no matter what you do.
Some people just need to the heck.
lolololol
What does this has to do with humor?
srsly?
because the article is from The Onion, a FAKE news story network
And Sara is the winner!!!
Can’t tell if trolling…
It’s hilarious because it shows just how many people are blind sheep and accept everything the media throws at them whether it’s real or fake.
No, not hilarious…it’s actually pretty depressing. I agree, this just isn’t funny.
“It’s hilarious because it shows just how many people are blind sheep and accept everything the media throws at them whether it’s real or fake. ”
Such as fake junk that pretends like pro-life people are idiots, like, this.
^ Pretty sure is stupid and is not trolling. Also, I’m pretty sure those people are dumb.
You gotta love The Onion.
Or they’ll get you in the dead of night.
works for me
RISCO1
████░░████░░████░░░███░░░██░░░█░░████░░████
██░░█░██░░░██░░░░░██░██░░██░░░█░██░░░░░██░░
████░░███░░██░░░░░█░░░█░░██░░░█░░████░░███░
██░░█░██░░░██░░░░██░░░██░██░░░█░░░░░██░██░░
████░░████░░████░██░░░██░░████░░░████░░████
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
████░░░░██████░░████░░░██████░░████░░████░░
██░░█░░██░░░░░█░██░░█░██░░░░░█░░██░░██░░░░░
████░░░██░█░█░█░████░░██░█░█░█░░██░░░████░░
██░░█░░██░░░░░█░██░░█░██░░░░░█░░██░░░░░░██░
██░░██░░██████░░████░░░██████░░░██░░░████░░
████░░████░░████░░░███░░░██░░░█░░████░░████
██░░█░██░░░██░░░░░██░██░░██░░░█░██░░░░░██░░
████░░████░██░░░░░█░░░█░░██░░░█░░████░░████
██░░█░██░░░██░░░░███████░██░░░█░░░░░██░██░░
████░░████░░████░██░░░██░░████░░░████░░████
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
████░░░██████░░░██████░░████░░░████░░░█░█░█
██░░█░██░░░░██░██░░░░██░██░░█░██░░░░░░█░█░█
████░░██░░░░██░██░░░░██░████░░░████░░░█░█░█
██░░█░██░░░░██░██░░░░██░██░░█░░░░░██░░█░█░█
████░░░██████░░░██████░░████░░░████░░░▄░▄░▄
████░░████░░████░░░███░░░██░░░█░░████░░████
██░░█░██░░░██░░░░░██░██░░██░░░█░██░░░░░██░░
████░░███░░██░░░░░█░░░█░░██░░░█░░████░░███░
██░░█░██░░░██░░░░██░░░██░██░░░█░░░░░██░██░░
████░░████░░████░██░░░██░░████░░░████░░████
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
████░░░░██████░░████░░░██████░░████░░████░░
██░░█░░██░░░░░█░██░░█░██░░░░░█░░██░░██░░░░░
████░░░██░█░█░█░████░░██░█░█░█░░██░░░████░░
██░░█░░██░░░░░█░██░░█░██░░░░░█░░██░░░░░░██░
██░░██░░██████░░████░░░██████░░░██░░░████░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
████░░░██████░░░██████░░████░░░████░░░█░█░█
██░░█░██░░░░██░██░░░░██░██░░█░██░░░░░░█░█░█
████░░██░░░░██░██░░░░██░████░░░████░░░█░█░█
██░░█░██░░░░██░██░░░░██░██░░█░░░░░██░░█░█░█
████░░░██████░░░██████░░████░░░████░░░▄░▄░▄
WIN!
Successfully FAILING does not constitute a win. Come back next year to try your luck again!
Was that an intentional or accidental rhyme?
it wasn’t a rhyme.
Win with again? Indeed. No rhyme.
I only stated Lawerence’s win.
I think that Stephen Bradbury disproves that. He failed so hard that when all the other skaters fell over he was the onlly one who could win. Hence a win gained through successful failure.
ROBOSEX
If I confess to being old enough to remember when this kind of thing was “the cat’s meow” for computer gaming, what do I win?
5.25″ graphics color card anyone?
████░░████░░████░░░███░░░██░░░█░░████░░████
██░░█░██░░░██░░░░░██░██░░██░░░█░██░░░░░██░░
████░░███░░██░░░░░█████░░██░░░█░░████░░███░
██░░█░██░░░██░░░░██░░░██░██░░░█░░░░░██░██░░
████░░████░░████░██░░░██░░████░░░████░░████
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
█████░░░░░░████░░░███░░░██░░░░░██░░█░░█░░█░
░░█░░░░░░░██░░░░░██░██░░███░░░░██░░█░░█░░█░
░░█░░░░░░░██░░░░░█████░░██░██░░██░░█░░█░░█░
░░█░░░░░░░██░░░░██░░░██░██░░░████░░░░░░░░░░
█████░░░░░░████░██░░░██░██░░░░░██░░█░░█░░█░
they’re not the only ones… backflips out
Candlejack, I have a new target for y
Too bad you diverted his attention directly onto you. And what do you know? I don’t have to step in and assist a fellow ninja. Score one for us.
I don’t get it. Who is Candlejack? I keep hearing that na
Isn’t Candlejack some kind of meme? I’d never heard of him befo
i dont know, i think its just a lame meme or something
Candlejack is from a 90′s cartoon called Freakazoid.
“The only way I can capture you is if you say my name”
“What, say Candlejack?”
“I think I’m going to need more rope…..”
QWatch it on youtube, classic.
Dude! You just said Candlejack out loud! Now you will b
Wow. Candlejack must LOVE the Interne-
every single commenter on this illuminates the need for just such a facility.
I agree with this guy ^^^
Thank you.
You sir, are very true.
If I could “like” your comment, I totally would.
^^This… Absolutely This^^
Amen. No offense to anyone but there are some situations where it’s simply the best option.
^This
+1 to you, sir. forbidding abortion is just like forbidding one to have anal sex. it is not done that often and mostly not necessary, but nonetheless nice to have the option. your body, your choice… not that of some people who think they know what is best for you. if your dead fetus’s soul comes back to haunt you, thats not their problem now is it? i’d rather be haunted than have no life or career at all because a condom ripped at 17 and it is illegal to decide about your own body. that and your kid will have a crappy life too since you never got any good education or life experience. eat that, conservatives.
Did you compare anal sex and abortion? Really? Really now?
I never figured most abortions were done for pleasure.
This has to be the stupidest Pro-Choice argument I ever saw. I showed it to my 110% pro-choice sister and she said
“That almost makes me want to switch sides.”
Agreed. I hate anal sex. I don’t hate abortion. So what’s the comparison?
You only hate anal sex because you’re on the wrong end.
^this.
Lol next time you feel like having anal sex, why don’t you just shove something up your own ass.
Win
why can’t we do both?
One up the bum and you won’t be a mum.
^This
If there would be ONLY anal sex there would be no necessity for abortions…. Thats the only connection.
I agree, it’s inside the woman whether it’s living or not. The only problem is that the organization itself is funded by the government, thus our tax dollars go to our local planned parenthood establishment, which is what most of the people (religious or not) have a problem with. So how do we keep it running without money?
Actually, the Hyde Amendment bars all government funds from going towards abortions. Planned Parenthood does receive funds for other services they provide, like routine screenings, breast exams, std testing, etc… But any funding from abortion comes from other areas
Planned Parenthood does other things that are not abortions: They are the OB-Gyn for poor people, and federal money only goes into this- no federal money is allowed to be used for abortions.
This.^^^
It’s against federal law for federal dollars to go towards abortion. All the federal money goes to other things and the abortion costs are covered by individual donations/corporate donations/other forms of income that I can’t think of at the moment.
It’s still cheaper than the millions of dollars planned parenthood would use on giving the mother and child a fighting chance in this world.
Its called giving the baby up for adoption. That way, you can still live your life, and the baby can live theirs. Also, many women have terrible nightmares after they abort- you can’t be so easily separated from something that has literally been a part of you, if only for 3 months
I had an appendix removed once. The nightmares were excruciating. You are a miniature Buddha, all covered in hair.
^ This, lmao XD
It’s also called not your damn choice. Even if a woman gives the baby up for adoption, she still has to go through pregnancy and labour. Those things are happening to her body, not yours.
As for the psychological effects, that varies from person to person. I know woman who’ve had abortions and thought nothing of it. I know one who had a miscarriage, and so would find it difficult, but still would abort at this point in her life.
The fact is, the psychological effects are also hers. If she decides it’s worth it, that’s her decision.
You’re right, just scramble the little bugger’s brains and be done with it! makes life so much easier!
You’re right. Deny her the choice.
You’re right. No nonviable entity that happens to be using me as an incubator is more important than me, the host. Feel free to use any fallacious appeals to emotion you want by inventing images of cute little brains being scrambled. I will be relaxing with visions of a Denver omelette and a life of my own design.
However, there are already SO MANY children without homes that need them. These children can grow up feeling unloved because they were given up.
This is why there should be a CHOICE. Some women want to give a child up for adoption, others prefer to prevent having a child by either:
going to Planned Parenthood for affordable protection, and if that fails, an early abortion, depending on their beliefs.
I happen to believe in science and therefore understand that nobody is suffering from an abortion except perhaps the mother (once again, that’s their decision).
Also: nobody on this planet that doesn’t have a uterus has any right telling me what I can and can’t do with mine. And for the women that believe abortion should be illegal: quit being a control freak and take a midol.
“nobody on this planet that doesn’t have a uterus has any right telling me what I can and can’t do with mine. ”
I love you for this.
Fine. YOU adopt them. All of them.
Thank you for saying this!!
There is currently a hefty waiting line for adoptions to the point that people are going out of the country to adopt, the numbers of orphans are not an issue
Yeah, as long as the kid is white or Asian and not disabled, people are lining up.
(A lot of abortions don’t fall into those categories.)
Yeah but what happens when they become wards of the state two years later because mom can’t take care of them? Those kids are unwanted because they have “troubles.” Sure the cute little newborns get adopted but what about the toddlers, children, and teenagers who are orphans? Everyone wants a perfect baby, no one wants one with a disability or one that is a year old.
Oh bull. There might be a wait for healthy, perfectly formed, white newborns, straight from the hospital, in an open adoption, from a mother who spent her pregnancy 100% free from drugs, cigarettes and alcohol. Which is approximately 0.00000001% of all the kids who need homes.
This argument makes me so angry. Kids – REAL KIDS – wait for years and years in foster care and most never have a snowballs chance in hell of adoption. They wll age out of the system and end up on the streets or in jail. Period. That’s the cold hard truth of the US adoption scene. The people who are in a place where they need to make adoption plans for their children tend to be people of color, people living in poverty, drug addicted, people not exactly getting good prenatal care. Thus the kids available for adoption have a million strikes against them from the beginning.
Adoption is an AWESOME way to build a family. My own family is now 4th generation built by adoption and I wouldn’t have it any other way. But to say oh, hey, pregnant women should just continue their pregnances and make adoption plans for their kids instead of ever aborting, is flatly ignorant and ridiculous. I of course fully support it in some cases, but pushing it on the majority of women when there are already so very, very many kids on waiting lists who will NEVER have parents is foolish and cruel.
weird, i guess all those kids in foster care don’t exist. are you twelve?
Absolutely true! Sad, but very true.
ofcourse, that makes PERFECT sence! putting a baby up for adoption is great. I mean, it’s not like a baby never gets adopted. right?
There are babies that NEVER get adopted and live horrible childhoods. Though, adoption is nice… there’s just not many people willing to adopt.
You have a point, i’d rather be dead than an orphan too….jacka$$
If you were 12 and an orphan you’d probably mean that.
Imagine all those little twelve year old who are devastated that they didn’t receive a Hogwarts letter the year before, they’re probably still cursing their lives even as we speak.
I’d rather be dead than bounced from home to home. My cousin is adopted. When my aunt got to the orphange to meet him, he was laying in a dirty diaper, smelly and crying. Because they’ve already got too many damn kids to change and feed them properly
I like to wait for 939 weeks before I preform an abortion.
There’s not even enough people to cover the kids that are already in social services. Let’s throw in a few hundred thousand extra babies per year and see how well it works…
Don’t you people think about the consequences of what you want, especially considering most people are against choice are also against same-sex couple adoption? Let’s increase the number of unwanted babies and decrease the potential pool of adopting couples. That’ll work… >.>
Idiot…
Not so easy to separate from something that’s been inside you for 3 months? I’ve had moles removed that made me more forlorn. Precancerous cells are living too, ya know! But nine months, agony of labor, and then giving away the fully formed being you’ve incubated for the better part of a year–that’s easier? And some people have nightmares? That’s your argument? Go research the stats on postpartum depression and get back to me. Your entire post is a logical fallacy.
People decide they’re more important than other people every day. If you own a cell phone, you decided your life is more important than the poor buggers in Malaysia getting lead poisoning from making them for you. Oh, and they’re all adults. Do you have any idea how messed up most surrendered kids’ lives are messed up? And how many wind up homeless? Surrendered does not mean adopted. We’d wind up with a foster-kid factory instead of parents waiting until they can have a child they LOVE and WANT.
I have a friend who was adopted. pretty sure he’s glad his parents didn’t have an abortion.
Wouldn’t that be a bit selfish of him?
Citation please.
Less women than you think have feelings of regret after their abortions, and even for those that do — does that mean that no women should be able to, because of the chance that they may regret it? Do you just think women are too stupid to assess risks and make decisions for themselves?
Yes, because most seventeen-year-olds have enough money on hand to be able to give up a child for adoption.
Adoption is an alternative to parenting, not to pregnancy.
Also, I just got my hair cut. I’ve been growing it out for years. I wake up screaming every night. It’s terrible.
“You’re going to give the baby up for adoption? Fine. Now piss off and we don’t want to hear from you ’til after it’s born. No we don’t care if you don’t have a job or anything to eat. And no we don’t care what happens to you afterwards. Goodbye.”
Its funny that conservatives rail against abortion, and also push for bigger punishments for crackheaded, poor criminals from the ghetto. And all the while gripe about the increased cost of jailing said criminals. But they never seem to realize that those very criminals were very likely subject to being aborted by their mothers way back when. But maybe the mom chose life, maybe due to all the pressure from the conservatives….
Depends on the conservative. I am conservative, which means I believe in a limited government in my economic and social affairs. I am all for legalization of marijuana and am pro-choice because the government does not belong in a medical procedures.
Perhaps you shouldn’t have sex if you aren’t mature enough or ready to deal with the consequences. You wouldn’t have to worry about the “ripped condom at 17″ if you didn’t have sex in the first place. If you are that concerned about an education and a career then you would focus on it and not worry about doing other things that could jeopardize it. That’s a little selfish don’t you think?
Abortion is a way of dealing with the consequences.
*hugs for you*
*jealousy*
; )
You know you’re my favourite
*sparkles*
Here, lemme correct that for ya.
Abortion is a way of AVOIDING dealing with the consequences.
Hm, no.
Abortion deals with the pregnancy consequence, and ultimately solves it.
As for ladyjpm…
To defend abstention is a way of avoiding dealing with the pregnancy and abortion discussion.
To defend abstention is a way of avoiding dealing with our social ideals of freedom, of non-prejudice, of acceptance, and even of love, and avoiding dealing with the concept of youth that changes over time. It means alienating yourself from the values the whole society holds, from which the sexual freedom is only a fruit. And after talking about sex a lot with my mother, my grandmother and their friends, I must say it really isn’t possible to go against that. The past is quite dark in that sense.
If everyone leaves making sex for when they’re ready to have a baby, the society will miss out on relationships and ultimately in human exchanges and personal growth. Nowadays, those who choose not having sex before marriage are still benefiting from a society that allows it, and from the general atmosphere created by the people who do.
Also, by society, I’m talking about my society – since it’s the only one I can talk with some property about – which is the occidental culture in general, sometimes american culture in particular.
Seriously, you don’t need to have your life ruined by a ripped condom even if you don’t abort.
You can just give away your kid to another family, you can even make a profit. Just because god gave you that child doesn’t mean it’s different than something you buy at Wal-Mart – if you’re not satisfied, you can bring it back (well sort of) by returning it to your local church.
You can even make a nice sum of money if you want to. Or you can just trade it for a Big Mac.
Thanks to Christians, babies are now a common trade good which can be sold, exchanged or just given away. Abortions are no longer required. Why deny birth to a child when you can involve him or her in human traffic? Oh yeah, because you are an evil atheist, that’s why.
^like
…..can’t tell if trolling or just extremely stupid.
Look at the avatar’s face: obviously trolling. Evil eyebrows ftw. : )
so people are having abortions for fun? um…
Problem is, it isn’t just your body. When a woman becomes pregnant she’s the vessel. And another thing-doesn’t anybody these days appreciate the sacred bond called MARRIAGE? If you’re going to disagree with the Bible and all of Christianity, please, PLEASE, at least have SOME idea what you’re talking about.
Teen pregnancy is probably God’s way of saying ‘Clean up your own messes, I’m tired of bailing you out. But I still love you, so here’s a little miracle with it’s own likes and thoughts and emotions. I’ll never give you more than you can handle; this is a challenge to test your faith and strength. For their sake, don’t let me down.’
Some need to realize that you may have done what’s required to create a life but it’s not yours to throw away just because you don’t think you’re ready. And I know the Abortionplex thing isn’t real but this is a sad, scary epidemic.
This means you have something to say if you meet someone who is considering an abortion. And it’s a pretty story, receiving a little life because someone out there wants us to be responsible for another human life. It’s cute. And terrible, if you think of how much this someone would interfere with my life. But cute.
However, the government shouldn’t make rules to abide by one religion’s beliefs. If I believe my fetus will only be a baby by 6th week of pregnancy, and only then it’ll have a soul, what right does anyone have to forbid me taking it out before that? To me, it’s nothing up to that point.
On the other hand, religious beliefs can’t be excuses to harm people, so a line must be drawn somewhere. I’ll leave that to science, who can be objective about the matter.
Or it’s your god’s way of saying ” Lol, I’m here to f*** with your life. U mad bro?”
Yeah that “little miracle” will be not only a financial burden, but a source of emotional distress, social judgement and torment at school, and if your parents are violent, abuse. And yes, it is their body, until the baby is born, it is their body. It’s like saying that an apartment manager is evil if he kicks somebody out because he can’t handle having them there, financially or emotionally. And since when has marriage been sacred? Men have been cheating on women and vice-versa since the dawn of time.
Keep your religious arguments in the Dark Ages where they belong.
awesome!
^This a million times.
tru dat
^made my day
I hardly think that just because a person neglected to read 1 article is grounds for killing them before they’re born. A bit too dramatic?
haha…this chick ^^^ is one of the idiots who thought that article was real.
Hi! I’m Humour
How come we aren’t friends? Don’t you understand me? I promise I’m a simple sort of being really.
I’m sure we can get on fine if you stop hanging round with my boring old brother Seriousness.
And also stay away from Humour’s cousin Stupidity, clearly it has had a really bad influence on you!
Hey humour, screw you people love me! And btw, you stole my serious avatar!
The fact that they assumed something on the Onion was true is all the grounds required.
+9000 0N10N5 4 U!
*eats onions*
*Smells breath and dies*
Those who use the internet primarily for facebook and email wouldn’t necessarily know that the Onion was a satirical site. All it takes is one person, either out of ignorance or for the lulz to post the story to their wall and it can spread.
it’s not my fault if the ignorant idiots of the internet don’t know satire if it stood up and smacked them in the face…(which ironically, is EXACTLY what this article did!)
They’re probably going to win a Darwin Award anyway. Why not save them the effort?
You can’t kill someone before their born. Logic fail.
Yes you can. Birth doesn’t make you magically come to life.
Yes, it does.
so the baby is dead for 9 months, is that what you’re saying? A dead baby is sitting in the mother’s womb, living off of her energy and food stuffs and moving around and kicking her for 9 months? Is THAT what you’re saying? My mom said I had the hiccups a lot before I was born. I suppose she was just making it up?
If navigating the birth canal from the inside out is all it takes to achieve life then why haven’t we been taking advantage of this before now? “Your child was miscarried? Not to worry! We’ll just stuff him back in there and try again!”
You know that doctors can monitor a baby’s heartbeat from inside the womb, right..? Or are heartbeats no longer a luxury exclusive only to the “living”?
this.
Thank you for getting to that before me.
He didn’t say it was dead… just not alive … yet. If it can’t survive on its own out in the world without an incubator – I would suggest it is not alive in a meaningful way.
I guess you would aren’t alive in a meanigful way since you can’t survive on your own…. you know outside the incubator that is modern society that provides you with food you don’t have to hunt, shelter you don’t have to build and this wonderful toy the internets.
The grass and dandelions on my lawn are alive. But I don’t shed tears over them when I mow the lawn of break out the Round Up. They’re living, growing, breathing creatures, created by God. But you know what they lack?
Sentience.
Same as a human zygote, or a cluster of cells. Human or not, a cluster of a dozen cells is NOT developed enough to be aware of what is going on, and no amount of argument of “oh we just don’t know for sure!” is going to convince me otherwise. In a perfect world, abortion would never be necessary. But the world isn’t perfect, and humans aren’t perfect. So in a difficult, horrible situation, YES I will always choose to support and protect a living, feeling, emotional, thoughtful, sentient human being over the zygote that may be living but nothing more. And I will continue to work towards a future where such situations and decisions won’t have to be necessary.
^this.
I know this comment was posted a long, long time ago, but I need to reply to it anyway. That is the most elegant and thoughtful elucidation of the pro-choice viewpoint I have ever seen. I agree wholeheartedly.
“And so far science shows humans are not conscious until they are 1.5 years of age.”
So you would kill a newborn baby with no further thought?
No, you cannot kill a baby because as soon as the baby is born, it is granted human rights. Part of those rights are that nobody can kill it (well, they could, but legal consequences would follow).
A zygote/fetus does not have human rights.
That was a reply specifically to Meh.
They had implied that consciousness is what grants a person those human rights, and that “science shows” that a child doesn’t gain that consciousness until they are 1.5 years old.
I was pointing out how ludicrous that was.
“And so far science shows humans are not conscious until they are 1.5 years of age”
Actually they found that a fetus can remember around the 12-16 week stage (3-4 months). Can’t remember the article but I saw it on the webs so I know it’s true
Humans may not become self-aware until several months after birth, but we develop higher brain function and the ability to receive sensory information (i.e. feel things) around the beginning of the third trimester.
… grammar fail.
You can’t kill someone before they are born. Logic fail.
^^^ HAHAH… never thought of it like that LOL
Probably because it’s incorrect. The baby is alive before it’s born. Logic fail.
Actually until it’s born, it’s considered a fetus. Logic fail.
Fetus, baby, child, teenager, adult… Words, stages of life. It’s the same person before it’s born that it is after, and the same person that it will be as an adult.
Cant figure out how to post, logic fail
Can’t respond to someone with a counterargument. Revert to ad hominem. Logic fail.
yes, we want to abort you, somehow a typing fetus, because you didn’t understand a joke. please to make sense.
Oh… I assumed he meant the commenters on this site, damn.
Hahaha, I know! I thought he did, too! That would be something I would truly stand behind
Christian families don’t use abortions anyway so I’m afraid this won’t change much. Their strength lies in numbers, not brains.
Oh I’m sure they do get abortions. It’s just kept very, very quiet.
vewwy quiet… had to.
Christian abortion: A swift punch to the gut or kicking her down the stairs works well. And you kill two birds with one stone – you keep your wife in her place.
You made my day, you sick jerk.
*teenage daughter
….can’t tell if trolling or stole one of the prison guard’s Internet-capable smart phones and thought you’d share your ‘genius logic’ on any subject you see.
Maybe we SHOULD make abortions illegal just to keep up with the breeding of the retards… Ever seen the movie Idiocracy?
It’s got electrolytes – It’s what plants crave….
Good point. Or we could just make them only legal for the poor or stupid. Soon enough we could have genetic testing done to see if the baby is worthy of life or death!
Pro-life activists who have an issue with the pro-choice people don’t realize how luck they are that there aren’t any ‘pro-abortion’ people who advocate mandatory abortions for poor people, students, teenagers, people over 45, prostitutes and other ‘immoral people’, convicts, drug addicts, diseased people, etc.
Really, if there were ‘pro-abortion’ people, pro-life people would have something to really worry about.
Pro-choice: “if you think your fetus is a person, keep it. If not, nobody should make it their business to tell you you’re wrong”
Curiously enough, I think that these “pro-abortion” guys, the way you built them, would have far more in common with “pro-life” people than “pro-choice” people.
Hey, now. Just because there are a lot of vocal Christian idiots does not mean that Christians are inherently idiots. (Or that idiots are inherently Christian). Some of us understand that issues are complicated and prefer not to preach hate and view things with a healthy skepticism and still love and serve the Lord. The “religious” Right has hijacked my religion but they have no authority to speak for it.
i agree
I agree with happy thoughts 100%. I’m not calling anyone stupid for not believing what I believe or trying to make you do what I think is right.
Exactly what Happy Thoughts and Rachel said.
+1
The 48% of the USA doesn’t accept evolution… Being that the USA is mostly Christian, it is safe to say that most Christians are idiots.
The 48% of the USA that doesn’t accept evolution… Being that the USA is mostly American, it is safe to say that most Americans are idiots.
Generalisation FTW!
Actually, I agree with that assessment. Unfortunately for religion, that’s mostly religion’s doing. Case and point: how many atheist creationists do you know?
Atheism is the philosophical position that there is no such thing as a God or Gods. Creationism is the belief that a God or Gods created the universe. There aren’t any atheist creationists not because of anyone’s level of intelligence, but because the views are mutually exclusive. It’s like trying to prove a point by saying “how many expert videogamer Luddites do you know?”
Math fail. 48% is not a majority, therefore not representative of “most Americans”.
Well, it may not be a majority per se, but it still means that the country must be really crazy as a whole to have such a huge percentage of people who don’t “believe” in evolution.
Does anyone have the authority to speak for it?
LOL “Christian families [sic] don’t use abortions anyway…” I see that once again facts aren’t getting in the way of religious rhetoric.
Education and choice reduces abortions (and the need for abortion, when contraception is available and not stigmatised). Model countries for this would include secular societies such as the Netherlands and Scandinavia.
True dat
“[sic]” indicates that a word was originally misspelled. “Families” is the correct spelling.
“sic” actually means “I’m passing on material that isn’t mine, the spelling and grammar are not my mistakes, but they have been lifted, verbatim, from the original materials”
You made me happy with your accuracy! If those idiots who protest @PP could think properly, they’d let those girls go into the clinic in peace. They’d then be educated about choices, and on the birth control to PREVENT an unwanted pregnancy. Instead, they scare or shame girls away, who then have sex without birth control, get pregnant and have to decide a)have an abortion. b)have a baby and screw up 2 lives at once.
Christianity has nothing to do with the anti-abortion nutcases.
Don’t blame Christianity because some wingnuts hide behind it to promote their agenda.
Do you think that all people who like the US must be Newt Gingrich toadies because he wraps himself in the flag?
I have nothing against God, its his fan club that annoys me.
Sorry… you don’t get to play that card, because in almost every case, anti-abortion nutcases are Christians.
Get over it. If you’re worried about your silly beliefs being mocked because some idiot with your silly beliefs and some even sillier beliefs than that is put in the spot light, maybe you shouldn’t have such silly beliefs to begin with.
You know you are just accelerating the chance of a flame war, right?
Yes
Did you just call Scandinavia a country?!
Oh trust me, I have known plenty of “Christian” folks that have received abortions… desperate people have desperate measures, no matter what they believe in.
Christians believe that everyone’s abortion is wrong and unneccessary except their’s.
You know nothing about Christians. And not enough anout anal sex.
Come over here.
If they’re true Christians then they’ll know better.
My mom always insisted I go to church with her. Then the preacher’s 16-year-old son and a kid…Swapped churches. You know, like that changed the fact he was nice or something
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
Hahaha awesome.
^THIS
Yes indeed. Yes.
+1
…….. Thank you
What does the scouter say about chimmeychango’s number of internets?
It’s over NINE THOUSAAAND
why can’t i have idiots like this on my friend list? i never get the chance to point out people’s stupidity anymore…
Perhaps you have a better choice in friends than these idiots.
Or worse, depending on how much you like to feel condescending.
HELLOZ EVERY ONEZ IM NEWZ HEREZ
██░░██░██░█
██░░██░██░█
██████░██░█
██░░██░██░█
██░░██░██░▄
TÌTS OR GTFO
I’m new here aswell.
Hello, Chosen One. Welcome to the nuthouse.
Whoa, abortion leads to nuclear war? Now that’s news!
how do you think they build Teh Bomz?
Aborted baby fetuses.
I wish there was a like button for this
Pfft, yes.
Thank yew, for win.
And I doubt even Mother Theresa could have made that connection…unless she was somehow related to Harold Camping!
She was an undercover theoretical physicist.
Fetuses are chemically unstable.
And placenta makes for a great catalyst. Seriously, you didn’t know that?
Nukes don’t require catalysts. That only applies to chemical reactions. Nuclear is different.
they do require a ‘catalyst’ in the form of a controlled, directed explosion sufficient to begin the fission reaction.
That’s not a catalyst. A catalyst reduces the energy required for the reaction to take place, it does not provide the energy.
Did I mention Science has never been my strong suit? So yeah, whatever you guys say.
don’t listen to me, i’m a fvcking monkey!
Placentas are catalysts, watch the FMA anime
win++;
Chalk one up for evolution.
Stem cells. Duh.
Pro-choice. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one. Don’t try to be a missionary and force your beliefs on other people.
This. Thankyou.
But the missionary is why I needed an abortion in the first place.
o-o
Win!
For me, pro-life people are much like veggies, don’t you agree?
Naah, veggies are actually good for something.
Bland, but full of nutrients?
What disturbs me the most, is that all those morons are against planned parenthood.
Agreed, a lot of people are too ignorant to understand that it’s not JUST an abortion clinic…
Or that the Onion is satire…
They’re too ignorant to know what Planned Parenthood does.
Hmmm, I have a bunch of air to sell, and I just found my customer base! $$$$$
LMFAO ^^ made my day
……
……
……
……
OOOHHHHHH.
get this,
i don’t.
Me! Me! I’ll take 3. How many internets per air?
Trade it for my time?
Or my gas bills?
Don’t question the Onion… the Onion is always wrong.
Can’t tell if trolling….
This is why it should be possible to remove internet access from specific people.
Unfortunately that’d include the funny trolls.
I like funny trolls, I just hate religious and overmoralistic ones.
^-^ What a bunch of idiots. Sounds like a good idea, though. :3
The Onion makes my eyes tear up…
i see what you did there.
I knew when I saw this on the onion that it was going to show up on here. I had no idea it would trick that many people, though. Yikes.
“That many” and probably thousands or millions more.
Contraception is a silent abortion? I had no idea, I guess I should throw away my Magnum XXL’s.
The “silent abortion” comment brought a combination of lol, wtf and “is this person for real?”. We are doomed.
They are most likely for real. Catholics think contraceptive measures are just as bad as abortion. At least the ones who follow the pope.
The pope is in favor of condom use for some people (prostitutes, those with viruses and diseases). I think he just wants people to smarten up some too. Too many idiots in the world thinking fathering 13 kids and not know which ones are actually theirs… It’s also why he mandated like 2 months of marriage counseling before they can get married.
No he’s not. He tells the people of Africa, the continent most riddled with HIV, not to use condoms.
I do believe I heard something about him condoning the use of condoms (like what demi said) fairly recently, maybe a few years or so.
You sure you’re not thinking of the previous Pope?
Only for *male* prostitutes. Not really a great step forward.
Yeah, I only went for one weekend of marriage counseling before I got married in the Catholic church. I honestly think the churches just pick whatever they want you to go through.
Quick sidenote: my mom and dad got married in the Catholic church as well. She told me that the priest told her while counseling her that she was only allowed to mastvrbate if she and her husband had sex and he was asleep but she still needed to…you know…finish. True story!
Haha, wow, interesting! xD
Awesome. I love your mom’s priest. That’s much more than I ever thought one would say.
MP FTW
this is nice, where did it come from?
overcompensate much?
“Though I don’t agree, I can understand why people dislike abortions, but now they’re against condoms, pills and IUD’s??” = exactly what was going through my mind.
That’s been the long held position of the Catholic church.
Arund here, our local Catholic Church has the side of a barn painted with a fetus and big letters that say: “Birth control: It’s abortion in dsguise!” lolz.
So I’m not American or whatever, so can someone enlighten me on the Onion?
Onion = Satirical website. They keep just enough facts and current events references to trick people who otherwise might not be aware and do not read the whole article.
I thought so, anyway thanks.
I like that one when they made an entry about a group of scientists who taught an ape she was going to die.
The Onion is a satirical news organization based in Chicago. Nothing they say is true; it’s all a joke.
You might as well believe the things you read at Landover Baptist Church!
Personally, I enjoy them both. But only someone very gullible would believe that their stories are in any way factual. Anyone who takes the time to fact check a tiny bit can figure this out, even if they’ve never heard of them.
*Madison, Wisconsin
*New York, New York
I need to start working on a machine that will slap people through the internet. Those people are most deserving.
I will pay you 14 jillion dollars for it. Make me a custom one that holds a baseball bat please.
I think I can help you with that. See, if we send out an electrical charge accompanied by cuts of data, we will be able to send a taser shock to anyone’s computer, it will be affective but slow since the energy might bog down the communication speed/
I weep for the future *facepalm*
I weep for the future *headdesk* myself.
I weep because of the Onions *Faceonion*
Attitude of those posting the link: too long, did not read
Attitude of The Onion (probably): u mad bro? bro, u mad?
My attitude about this comment: ROFL
Sweden have had legal abortions since 1938(1974 with the current laws)… No nuclear war here yet, maybe we’re just to sexy to die
*too boring.
Plus you don’t have any nuclear weapons, power stations yes, missiles no.
Oh so nuclear war is when a country fires it’s missiles at themselves? Oops my bad
Uh, yeah, that is what Nuclear Civil War is.
I fail to see how the best source of death metal in the world is a boring place.
one word: Volvo
One word: Entombed
Yeah, but one more word: IKEA
Yeah crappy over priced furniture makes the country less boring.
*ignores the heresy*
Death Metal and MINECRAFT!
Not having any nuclear weapons is a pretty effective way to avoid nuclear war…
sure, if you want to do it the EASY way. fvckin slackers.
It didn’t help the Japanese.
Second lesson: don’t let the US have nukes. Yikes.
That wasn’t a nuclear war though. That was a conventional war ended by nuclear weapons, not a war fought through the use of said weapons.
Maybe I’m missing something fundamental here, or maybe there’s a difference in understanding of the terminology, but a nuclear war is where the belligerents fight with nuclear weapons, both (or all) sides. IE, the weapon of choice is nuclear and probably end in MAD.
htt p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_warfare
“MAD” is a deterrent concept, not a final outcome of Global Thermonuclear War (which is WOPR’s favorite game).
Erm yes, yes it is. Hence my point.
And hence, the causal link between abortion and nuclear war is severed. Hooray for science, amirite?
Sweden FTW! It’s on my list of countries to flee to when America becomes even move of a totalitarian hell. My current list (not prioritized, just whichever I can learn the language of fastest) is:
1. Denmark
2. The Netherlands
3. Sweden
4. Switzerland
I should probably warn you, the cuisine’s terrible. I have a Swedish sister-in-law and have on a number of occasions had to sample her traditional-style cooking, and can reliably report that the Swedes regard food as something to flavour the salt with.
“Swedes regard food as something to flavour the salt with”
Thank you sir, you made me laugh!
+1
Sounds like my kind of food! ^_^
*gets more popcorn for her salt*
…I’m gunna die early, aren’t I? lol
Don’t forget the sea of butter or Paula Deen will get you.
Welcome to America.
Belgium’s okay too, you know… Once you stop trying to wrap your head around our politicians endless discussions and debates. Most of us have, anyway.
Or you could try Angola.
Some of us already fled. New Zealand ftw!
P.S. The language is easy to learn.
try talking to someone who’s lived in a “totalitarian hell” state, and think about that the next time you make any kind of choice whatsoever, spoiled little fvcktard.
U mad patribrot?
well good luck on learning the dutch language, it’s one of the world’s hardest languages to learn… but you’re always welcome!
No nuclear war there yet? Wait until Notch launches a Minecraft update with nukes.
Now, in all seriousness, I’m a big fan of sweden, and scandinavia as a whole.
Especially after this: htt p://satwcomic.com/
i really want to work in an abortion center, so i could kill babies all day
…can’t tell if trolling or really bad Insanity Wolf impression…
Because the Onion is srs bsn, people.
The righteous shall seek truth only to find they funded the lie in the first place.
^ that
The righteous shall seek truth only to find they funded the lie in the f i r s t place.
What I find far more disturbing than the title of the article is that the people commenting are able to breed.
I say WIN…PP kills children,hurts women and protects sex predators. It’s time to take a stand and tell them ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
I can’t tell if you’re joking or not. To protect my fragile psyche I am going to say yes, yes you are joking.
Is it necessary to stand up?
My bed is ridiculously comfortable.
I’m apathetic, just a victim of my generation.
^^ This ^^
What? It doesn’t kill children, it disposes of unwanted cells, in just the same way women’s bodies do in 7 out of 10 pregnancies.
It doesn’t hurt women – certainly not as much as carrying a full term pregnancy or giving birth does!
And how on earth does it protect sex predators?
That doesn’t even make sense!
Sorry – Just to clarify, that is a Space jedi ninja tyrannosaurus who put the sentient being into a woman.
I don’t mean to nitpick, but I would prefer that if you are going to quote my beloved Bible’s more obscure passages, you should quote them correctly.
But thanks for drawing attention to this important issue. PPL always forget how Planned Parenting affects the Space jedi ninja tyrannosaurus.
It actually does hurt women. It has horrible psychological effects in many cases. Some women are actually unable to conceive further down the road. I’m sure the latter isn’t as common now as it once was, but still. My opinion is if you don’t want to have a baby, either keep your legs closed or use protection. Both of those also helpful in preventing STDs. Lol. And, if you do get pregnant, then please, put the baby up for adoption. Some people like my husband and I would love to be given a chance to be parents to a baby whose parents either didn’t want to or couldn’t take care of it. Yes, I am obviously pro-life. No, I will not get into a huge argument over it. This is my honest opinion. I have said what I have to say. That’s it.
There are already plenty of babies up for adoption. If you and your husband were fit to care for them, you would already have them.
BTW, all your information has been proven wrong in medical studies, and you do not have the right to enforce your opinion as law.
You do know that there are thousands of couples who are capable to take care of children but are put on waiting lists for years, right?
You’re right. Women should totally force themselves through the ordeal of pregnancy and labour when they don’t want to so other people can get a baby sooner.
I have been pregnant (and it definitely was not the best) and I know many people who have children so, I speak from experience when I say pregnancy and labor aren’t that bad. The worst part is the delivery; and personally, I don’t like epidurals (not a big fan of medicine and needles scare me), but I’m not against the use of them if someone doesn’t want to go through the pain. Also, c-sections are optional now.
And, as I said previously, they should keep their legs closed or use protection.
Good for you. So, you’ve experienced every pregnancy? You’ve experienced all of the complications that can accompany labour, or the pregnancy itself? You have every genetic condition which can complicate reproduction? You are every person with a functional female reproductive system, and thus are able to determine what they do with them?
As I said previously, contraception is never 100% effective.
I never said contraception was 100%. It helps, though. And I wish that those times it failed, people would choose to keep the baby so he/she would have a chance at being loved by those of us who would love to be able to do so.
Wish all you like. It’s their choice, not yours.
Ben, I wish most men I knew defended women’s choices like you do.
As for hippogators, I follow you, and I wouldn’t advise anyone to abort, as I wouldn’t abort myself (an opinion which changed over time and might change again). But I also think that women should make their own choices on what they can or cannot handle, be it trauma from abortion, stress and body changes from pregnancy, post-birth depression or giving up their babies. I’m actually more in favor of abortion than giving up for adoption, because I think it’s harder on the mom to give up a baby that shared her body for months, and harder on the baby, that isn’t loved as it should from the start.
Personally, I’ve known people who went to extremes not to carry an unwanted pregnancy (abortion is illegal where I live, though there are a few doctors who perform it), and I can’t see how someone feels right by forcing them to it. As for me, if I was told I can’t decide what to do with my body, especially based on unproven beliefs of theirs, I’d be seriously enraged.
Women abort since cave age. Some people thinking it’s wrong won’t change this, nor the rejection they feel for the fetus, nor the health problems that come with abortions performed in third-hand clinics, or even on their own bathroom. Or the defective child that comes from an unsuccessful attempt.
Please, let them do it safely, because they already choose.
gee.
tl;dr myself here.
You win. Everything you said is exactly what I was going to say.
Cheers, Kokihi.
I speak from experience that my pregnancy sucked ass. Hated every moment of it, from the first discovery of being pregnant to my 18 hour labor and last minute C-section.
And then I finally had the most precious and beautiful child ever. Holding my baby in my arms and finally getting to see what’s been growing inside of me was pretty magical. Would I suffer through pregnancy to have another? I’d rather set myself on fire. I’m sure if I had another, it’d be different. Would I take that chance? F*ck no.
I’m glad it wasn’t that bad for you, but for a few others, it’s a nightmare. Don’t generalize pregnancy because you didn’t have a bad experience.
I am aware of that. Honestly, I mostly said that because I was pissed off. My point is that potential parents aren’t on a waiting list due to lack of babies up for adoption. All that having mothers give up their babies will do is overcrowd the system even more, making life even harder for the children. It will not make it easier for a person to adopt.
Abortions are, in lots of parts of the world, merely an option. It’s not mandated, as in China. Some women are unable to conceive for *any* reason, such as having had children, or from growing older. Are you advocating banning both of these things???
For every lifestyle choice (ie. from having sex to getting an operation) there are risks and benefits. PP helps women and girls get informed and make the legal options available. What’s psychologically harmful about that? Do you think that going through an unwanted pregnancy and then being obliged to give this born life up for adoption is not psychologically horrible?
Why are you so narrow-minded about a complex, personal issue? Are you even aware of the failure rates of condoms in preventing pregnancy and STDs even when used properly?
Did you know that some girls are paid to have babies to be put on the adoptive market for bleeding-heart first-world couples to adopt? Is supporting a baby mill the right thing to do? Shee-it!
“Are you even aware of the failure rates of condoms in preventing pregnancy and STDs even when used properly?”
With typical use, the pill is 92 to 97 percent effective. With perfect use, the pill can be 99.9 percent effective.
Combine that with also using a condom and the chances are reduced even further. Why would you not just use both? It really isn’t that difficult to prevent pregnancy.
So your position is that, if one doesn’t take every possible precaution against pregnancy – not just reasonable precautions – then they deserve to be forced through pregnancy and labour? What about those one in one thousand instances of fully protected PIV which we should expect to result in pregnancy?
Please don’t presume to know my position. First of all, I think using 2 methods IS “reasonable precautions”.
My position is simply that an unborn baby is a living human being. Don’t all human beings supposedly have a right to life? No, wait, only human beings who are out of the womb are considered actual human beings, right? Seems silly to me.
You conveniently neglected to answer my query about those pregnancies which arise despite using reasonable precautions.
As for the fetus, get some science in you. An unborn baby is not a living human being. I don’t think it occurs at the moment of birth, but sufficiently early in the process, it is not sentient. There is no awareness. There’s not even any differentiation between it and the fetus of another species (judging from your concern for human rights, I’m guessing you don’t give a crap about the rights of other species).
The answer to your question was “Don’t all human beings supposedly have a right to life?”.
I’d like to see this “science” that states directly that a fetus is not alive, or human.
Appearance-wise, no, there isn’t much difference, but that’s where the similarities end. From conception, the human fetus has a unique set of DNA specific only to humans. (You did know they had DNA, didn’t you? That doesn’t just appear in the last month of pregnancy.) And no, it is not the mother’s DNA. I won’t say it’s completely different from the mom’s because half the chromosomes do come from her so you’d have to assume some of it is the same, but it is the baby’s own individual DNA none-the-less.
Sentience has nothing to do with being alive. The baby is alive through the whole process, sentience or not. If you’d like to argue further whether the baby is alive or not, then I’ll need you to tell me what the baby is if not alive. Also, when does the baby “come to life”?
I never claimed the fetus is not alive. It clearly is. It grows, and metabolises. What I said is that life, in and of itself, is unimportant in the dissemination of rights.
Bacteria’s alive. I gladly wipe it out with medication. I use cleaners designed to exterminate them. Being alive does not confer rights onto someone.
The cells in my hair have human DNA. Am I killing a human being every time I get a haircut?
DNA is not sentient. It is sentience which infers rights. Something which is not sentient cannot feel, nor fear death. The DNA patterns are irrelevant.
As for the fetus not being human, we know that the fetuses of related species are indistinguishable at early stages of development (generally, the more related they are, the later they diverge). As I’ve already pointed out, the DNA patterns are irrelevant, so the death of a human fetus is not different than the death of the fetus of a cow, or a dog, or a pig, depending on when it occurs.
: )
My parents used three forms of contraception and I was still concieved. I by mere existance invalidate your argument
Had I said it was 100% effective when using 2 or more methods, then yes, you would invalidate that point. Since I didn’t say that, you fall into the 1-2% failure rate. I’d say 1-2% is a pretty small chance, no?
“I’d say 1-2% is a pretty small chance, no?’” If you have sex once a day every day, 1-2% means 3-6 times each year… Not THAT small, no?
Even a 0,1% means you get a baby every two or three years, having sex every day.
Seeing that girls start having sex as early as 13 these days, and people can carry pregnancies successfully almost beyond their 50ies… You have some 30-35 years of fertile life, which would give you about 10 pregnancies per girl, when contraception failed. That’s even within marriage (I’m not sure why, but people usually think married couples never think of abortion).
Even if you had sex once a week, and taking the 0,1% rate, you’d still have at least 1-2 unwanted children to every woman that used more than one form of contraception all the time.
The only method which could prevent that would be the one I can’t even argue against because it strikes me as too crazy to use as a policy – abstinence. It’s so absurd and difficult (and I’d say anti-natural) that people make careers out of it, they establish it as the peak of devotion to their faiths. Really can’t make a public policy out of it.
And yet so many people don’t.
The failure rate doesn’t mean it fails every 1-2% of the time. It means EACH time, separately, there is a 1-2% chance you will get pregnant and a 98-99% chance that you won’t. Learn how odds work before responding next time.
If, each time, there’s a 1-2% chance that one will get pregnant, then the law of averages states that you should expect pregnancy to occur in 1-2% of cases.
Learn how statistics works before responding next time.
Learn how statistics actually work before responding.
“The law of averages is a lay term used to express a belief that outcomes of a random event will “even out” within a small sample.
As invoked in everyday life, the “law” usually reflects bad statistics or wishful thinking rather than any mathematical principle. While there is a real theorem that a random variable will reflect its underlying probability over a very large sample, the law of averages typically assumes that unnatural short-term “balance” must occur. Typical applications of the law also generally assume no bias in the underlying probability distribution, which is frequently at odds with the empirical evidence.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_averages
-”the principle that, in the long run, probability as naively conceived will operate and influence any one occurrence.”
-”the expectation that a possible event is bound to occur regularly with a frequency approximating to its probability, as in the (actually false) example: after five heads in a row the law of averages makes tails the better bet”
-”The idea that probability will influence all occurrences in the long term, that one will neither win nor lose all of the time. For example, If it rains every day this week, by the law of averages we’re bound to get a sunny day soon . This colloquial term is a popular interpretation of a statistical principle, Bernoulli’s theorem, formulated in the late 1600s.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/law+of+averages
What you’re looking for is the law of large numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
Regardless, you’re still wrong. If a person has sex once (using the above mentioned level of protection), there is a 1-2% chance that that one time will result in pregnancy and a 98-99% chance that it will not result in pregnancy. The next time the person has sex, she has the same 1-2% chance of pregnancy and 98-99% chance of non-pregnancy. It doesn’t converge. The odds each time remain 1-2% yes and 98-99% no. How many times the person has sex is irrelevant. It doesn’t “even out” over time to eventually guarantee a pregnancy, as the law of averages would suggest.
“While there is a real theorem that a random variable will reflect its underlying probability over a very large sample, the law of averages typically assumes that unnatural short-term “balance” must occur.”
So, you think that PIV sex is an uncommon occurrence?
I got the name of the law wrong. You’ve thankfully provided me with the name of the real law. Thanks for the research.
Now, consider each instance of PIV to be a level on a tree graph. Of all the possible outcomes, 98% of them are no pregnancy, and 2% are pregnancy. Go out one hundred, and you will find that roughly 87% of the end points contain a pregnancy along the way. Go out one hundred, and you’ve got about the same odds of winning a lottery as you do of not having one resulting pregnancy.
While I will give you that more people have babies than win the lottery, that doesn’t mean that NOT getting pregnant is as rare as winning the lottery. Where is the logical reasoning for that? And where are you getting that 87% of people will have a pregnancy during their life? (And of that supposed percentage, how many were actually unwanted?)
No, I never said having sex was an uncommon occurrence. However, the “large numbers” in the theorem would include all of the billions of people in the world. They’re talking REALLY large numbers. If 1-2% of those using protection get pregnant, yes it is a pretty big number, but the 98-99% of them who don’t is a much bigger number.
Let’s use 6,775,235,700 as the world population for the purpose of this example. (Taken from http://www.google.com/publicdata from 2009). If every one of them is currently having (protected) sex, presume half are female. That’s 3,387,617,850 who have the potential to become pregnant. 2% of that number is 67,752,357, so that many women/girls would get pregnant. The 98% who don’t? 3,319,865,493. Seems like a pretty small chance to me.
Regardless of all of that, it doesn’t actually work that way. Law of large numbers or not, it is not anywhere close to a sure thing that 1-2% of people using protection will absolutely get pregnant.
You can’t say, well, I’ve had sex 99 times using this method, next time I’ll be getting pregnant. Statistics says so. That’s not how it works. That would be the law of averages.
You could have sex 6 times a day every day for 10 years, that’s 21,900 times, and you’d be no closer to having a guaranteed pregnancy the next time you have sex. Each instance has to be looked at as a single instance. The LLN has nothing to do with condom failure rates.
The law of large numbers (thanks again) states that you can expect, for sufficiently large runs, that the number of “successful” cases will be equal to the probability of a successful case multiplied by the number of runs. This is the law that you pointed out. It doesn’t affect any particular case, no. The odds are 1-2% for any particular instance of PIV, but that means that you can expect a lot of unwanted pregnancies.
I find it odd that you are pointing out the relatively large number of successful cases, where pregnancy did not occur. That’s completely beside the point. Abortion is a moot issue in those cases.
What I’m saying, and what is backed up by the law you yourself provided, and your own argument, is that, even using protection, you can expect a lot of people to fall pregnant. Your stance on abortion would force those people, who took all reasonable measures to avoid pregnancy, to go through with it against their will.
And the number of people who do get pregnant illustrates just how big the effect is, despite the small odds. We’re talking about rights of the individual here, and so the real number is important.
Also, you are aware that a condom can fail to prevent pregnancy without breaking, right?
The way you’re looking at this is as if it states that “You will become pregnant in 1-2% of all cases of using this method of protection”. It doesn’t. It’s “Each time you have sex using this method of protection, your chance of getting pregnant this time is 1-2%. Your chance next time, if using the same method, will be 1-2%”.
That is two entirely different things, and if you can’t understand that, I can not help you. I have tried several times to explain it to you.
Oh ffs, would you shut up already?
I mean really, you’re just beating a dead horse–but don’t worry, the horse wasn’t aborted.
Contraception is not 100% effective. As for the adoption issue, the woman still has to go through the ordeal of pregnancy and labour. That’s her call to make, not yours.
So, someone shouldn’t get an abortion because you and your husband are selfish. Eh, at least you’re honest about it. Kudos.
How is it selfish to want to take on the responsibility of another person’s life?
Ignorant post is ignorant.
^this
Because you’re trying to take responsibility for another adult when you mandate what they can and can’t do to themselves. Not your call, nor mine.
If you want a child, then adopt already. There many kids who need homes. Or are you being picky and shopping around for the “perfect” baby?
The waiting line for adoptions is several years long. Also, there are women who change their minds about giving their babies up for adoption. All babies are perfect.
I reiterate:
“You’re right. Women should totally force themselves through the ordeal of pregnancy and labour when they don’t want to so other people can get a baby sooner.”
Then why haven’t you adopted a child who’s older, rather than waiting for an infant? Two and three year olds aren’t yet “damaged goods” and generally do OK. I’ve known couples who wanted kids who were THRILLED with adopting older kids. Yeah, they come with baggage, especially when adopting a child of another race, but hey – they wanted a child bad enough to risk it, and yes, it worked out fine. One gal even adopted a family of kids – three girls, ranging in age from three years old to early teens. It was tough, but it worked, and she never regretted that decision.
Having known enough people who’ve had unplanned pregnancies (and thanking my deity of choice it wasn’t me), I have come to realize that having the CHOICE of having an abortion available is often the one thing that keeps a woman able to say “I am going through with this” and continue on – I personally know no one who has had an abortion, but know plenty of people who’ve chosen to keep their kid or give it up. But they had the choice available, and I would never take that choice away – to take away that choice would mean they would feel trapped and out of options. And you don’t want a pregnant young woman to feel she has no options – that’s why people find newborns in trashcans, even though most states have laws on the books saying a child can be left at a hospital, fire station, or police station within 48 to 72 hours after being born and there will be no questions asked, just the child will be taken in and all parental rights will be given up. The ones who suffer the most in those situations are always the child. Keep making the option available – lives will be saved. Honestly, I feel pro-choice people end up saving more lives than the pro-lifers, because BOTH the mother and the baby are being considered. And shouldn’t that be the real definition of “pro-life”?
All that being said, did you realize the Onion is a satire? And they were deliberately trying to piss off the pro-life people?
^^A thousand times yes! People should copy this and use it as a form-letter when telling the Pro-choice side of the issue. Yes, please!
“I feel pro-choice people end up saving more lives than the pro-lifers, because BOTH the mother and the baby are being considered. And shouldn’t that be the real definition of “pro-life”?” <– THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS!!!!!!!
I thought you said that you were going to express your (ignorant, factually incorrect) personal opinion and then not comment again?
If I get pregnant while on my medication, my baby will almost definitely have terrible birth defects that will seriously affect its quality of life. Plus I’ll be passing on some sub-optimal genetic disorders.
My partner and I are really careful but accidents happen. If I have an unplanned pregnancy there’s a pretty high chance I’ll have an abortion.
It’s always the people that God sees fit to not have kids who have the most to say about someone else who CAN have kids. I’m so sorry that my reproductive organs work and yours don’t. Leave me alone about it, though. It’s not my fault.
In many cases, it has horrible ‘psychological effects’ because of bigots who guilt-trip women who have aborted.
Also, your use of the expression ‘psychological effects’ tells me you really don’t have the knowledge to speak of psychology.
i did get an abortion 2 years ago. I didnt had nightmares, as here they give you pills to make that event blur and more likely to forget the principal operation. I did it by choice and because it was most probably an empty egg anyways, so saving me from worse later (ie, a miscarriage) . Even if i did it from my own will, i did had some hard time right before dealing with it, and it is normal, it is ,after all, a mourning to do. But do i regret it? no. I had medical reasons, others people get financial or age reasons. (But i totally agree if people do use abortions as protection..pills and condoms exists, and are really easy to get..well in quebec anyways.)
i dont know where you did get your numbers but..psychological effects? as much as any big live event. Not able to ever want a child again? talk to my 3 months old girl. But i think all that pain and traumatism you refer to are from the old method of abortion praticed by charlatans and the “ye olde tricot crochet”….
The sad reality is that there is roughly one abortion in the United States for every 4 live births. Figuring an average of two live births per couple, that would mean that if all pregnancies that currently end in abortion instead resulted in an adoption, we would need approximately one adoption per two couples.
I love you
hay guise wats goin on?
LOLOLOLOLOLOL!
If you go by what the Bible actually says, is that life begins when the baby has a circulatory system- “blood is the life”. So, no about the ‘putting the baby in the mother.
And also, in biblical times they thought that a whole baby came out of father, because they didn’t know that half of it comes from the dad and half from the mom.
This is why Jacob and Esau had different mothers, because when one wouldn’t get ‘with child’, he went for the servant, who got pregnant. Because the people of that time didn’t know anything about biology- we know that a ‘whole baby’ doesn’t get put into the mother, the mix happens and the development happens for weeks before it’s a baby.
Can’t tell if trolling or just stupid…
“Women are sooooooo stupid to fall for this…”
I can think of one woman who this describes.
How much you willing to bet that they’re all FOX News fans?
…Thirty bucks sound good?
I’ll go against you on that bet, seeing as those people probably aren’t smart enough to operate a TV.
1 million dollars. I always wanted to be a millionaire.
But since Sterno is almost certainly correct, you would be out a million, not up a million.
(Psst! I don’t actually fully comprehend how this works! Don’t tell anyone!)
Dude, you just cost me $ 1 mil.
-1 internetz
No I didn’t; since casual bets placed on internet comments boards are legally binding contracts, you were up a million as soon as Moms clicked “Add Comment”! No worries; I’m sure it’ll be in your PayPal account by morning!
(Before reading this know I already Know it a fake story.)
Wow $8 Million, Why not just use the stair method?
-B-illion
8 million barely registers
How are we the dominant species on this planet?
Not enough abortion.
BOOM!
OMGLOL
Cos we aren’t as cool as dolphins
Sad but true, dude, sad but true.
Well at least my hand is one… so I’m partially cool
the sad part is that THESE are the people who vote
so much for democracy, huh?
could my chemist friends please work faster on aqueous birth control to dump in the water supply.
Some ppl just haven’t heard about the Onion News Network. We were watching ONN briefly with some friends over and they started trippin’ out, thinking it may have been real. The anchorwoman is pretty serious seeming…
Wait…I think it took a really long time for the titanic to sink. The movie sure felt extremely long.
Oh hell yes, I mean it took up two VHS tapes.
That was my thought, too: The sinking of the Titanic was neither immediate (since it took hours) nor absolute (since there were survivors).
i’m going to post this on my FB just to see if i can get the idiots to come out of the woodwork.
“theonion”
Can I say it? I’m gonna say it.
LOL WHITE PEOPLE
I don’t understand why you only want white people to laugh. Everybody, regardless of race, creed, or color, should be laughing at these idiots.
(/Sarcasm. Now, seriously: Do you really think that only whites are fervently pro-life religious zealots?)
He must be black.
I know all of us are gulity of only reading a title and summary at least once.
Also the vast majority of people do not know what The Onion is.
Before you get indignant and repost with your rage, though, it behooves you to read more than the headline and maybe even check the source out.
These people aren’t guilty of failing to read closely, they’re guilty of falling for their horrible prejudices and ignorance about PP. It’s fine if you are informed and still disagree, but they’re willing to believe any terrible thing they hear. That’s way leads to very dark places. We’ve seen it many times in human history.
a lot of people are too lazy to be informed. it’s much easier to make a token effort to ‘do research’ and find bogus info on the innernetz (or the teevee) to support their delusions. altho i personally think more blame attaches to the ‘gurus’ who put this false information out there.
Fìrst, regardless of how much effort people put into doing research or what sources they consult, it is a basic human instinct to believe things that agree with your existing opinions and to discount the validity of things which disagree with them. So I think that most people do change change their minds when researching a contentious issue; they simply search for more support for their pre-existing convictions.
Second, I think that all the blame resides with the reflexive forwarder/reposter/copypaster, and not with the source “guru.” You;re responsible for the content of your speech, whether or not you are merely parroting someone else’s words.
Oops; “do change change” should be “do not change”
“Given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe its true, or because they’re afraid it might be true. Peoples’ heads are full of knowledge, facts and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool.” – Terry Goodkind, The Wizard’s first rule
(yes, this is actually a real quote from a very good book. source:http://sot.wikia.com/wiki/Wizard's_Rules)
Wait…did you just use being lazy as an excuse for ignorance?
I guess all of those years spent paying attention in – and working hard for – good grades in school were wasted! I could have just the first line in my text books and then claimed that “everyone else was doing it and it’s OK because ignorance is widely accepted”!?
Boy, do I have egg on my face! :-O
I’d bet thousands of dollars that these people would become suicide bombers if a priest would tell them to.
Ignorant post is Ignorant.
*truthful *truthful
now it’s just getting old…
and yes, yes they would.
They just have their panties all in a bunch because it’s May 22 and they’re still here.
You do know that was one guy and his followers not all Christians?
Um, aren’t “Christians” really just “one guy and his followers”, by definition? I mean, yeah, different guy, but still… that expression doesn’t mean much.
Now, had you pointed out, “it’s just a very small fraction of all Christians”, you’d have had a nice, sensible point.
er, doesn’t ‘the second coming of christ,’ ‘the rapture,’ ‘judgement day,’ and the other similar terms imply Judeo-christian (or at least Abrahamic) religions?
^this
Wow, I had to laugh SO HARD. The Onion always hits hardest.
I’m pro-life and I like the Onion. I “like” a pro-life organisation’s page and their logo is white and green. When the Onion first posted this article, I thought it was from them. But, like most sane people, I clicked on the article and within two sentences knew it was from the Onion.
And I lol-ed so hard.
Oh man i laughed so hard at this
Ironically, many of them want something to die…
I thought they were trying to protect life?
Bet at least $10 all of these people are against universal healthcare, which helps protect lives that are, you know, actually already here.
LOL! 8 billion dollars? Who would believe that?
Nevermind…
This is soul-crushing.
Whoever wants this to end swiftly, “like Titanic” obviously never saw the 3 hours and 14 minutes of melodrama that was the movie.
Birth control is a silent killer?
Jeeze, and to think this whole time I didn’t know I was killing something. I thought I was just preventing an egg from being released from my ovaries.
-___- god people are stupid.
Agreed. That was the comment I found most scary. Bring on more global overpopulation, y’all!
STD’s, YAYYY!
The funny thing is, i you follow that logic all the way then any second you spend not pregnant/having unprotected sex is a silent killer. You could be making babies right now! Why aren’t you!
Just a thought…
Contraception is wrong, because it means that potential lives are knowingly never allowed to be. The same logic means that males masturbating is wrong.
Doesn’t that mean that a female not getting laid for a menstrual cycle is wrong?
ofcourse it does! what are you, stupid?
Excuse me for a moment. I have some souls to save!
Oops. Me too. BRB.
Some of the commenters are a perfect example of why we need abortion…
^^^^THIS. O_O IS VALID.
T. What a bunch of morons.
Now if you’ll all excuse me, I’m off to see that town that descended into Hell following a gay wedding.
Oh Teabaggers and their misconceptions of healthcare. When I visited Washington I suggested to one of them they visit the UK and see what nationalised healthcare is actually like. Her response was this,
‘Well I’ve visited Paris.’
…
Have you visted Canada and seen their national healthcare system?
They are all thrilled that tonsillectomies and appendectomies are elective surgeries.
If this is an insult to Canadians, like me, then congratulations, you completely failed.
I don’t know if “insult” is the right word; it appears to be an implication that it is a fact that Canada’s health care system categorizes 100% of tonsillectomies and appendectomies as elective, and therefore every Canadian needing one of these procedures will be forced to pay for them out-of-pocket.
Of course, Susie gave no assurance that she had actually been to Canada (either for a quick visit, or to every hospital in the country) and seen this for herself, so it would be most reasonable to assume that she has not, and she’s trying to shoot down someone else’s argument as unfounded while presenting her own just-as-unfounded argument, but allowing the reader to make the assumption that she has “been there.”
It’s not too surprising; her previous posts show that she’s a Christian pro-Lifer, and the arguments for those religious viewpoints are not based on logic anyway; they’re based on personal conviction.
But your response was no clearer; were you trying to say that, as a Canadian, you can contradict her ridiculous-seeming claim?
Yes, I was. And I fully agree with you.
LMAO! ignorant people sure are funny some times… too bad it’s only some times…
I wanted to see the replies telling them that the Onion is satire
I’m appalled that the site would even create an article like that, just for the shock value. This would never be acceptable in Philadelphia, where I was born and raised. I remember one time, I was chillin’ out on the basketball(the game) courts at the playground(which is where I spent most of my days), when I a couple of guys, who were notorious for starting trouble in my neighborhood, approached me. They were pro-choice and I’m obviously pro-life. We argued the topic then it got physical. This had been the first fight I was involved in and my mom got scared, so she sent me to my auntie and uncle in Bel-Air.
That was at least 40 years ago, and I’m just so outraged by this article!!! I MEAN WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD JOKE ABOUT ABORTION?!?! ABORTION IS NOT FUNNY AT ALL! IT’S JUST NOT FUNN–HNNNNNNGGGHHHH!!
That was almost amusing.
*was about to flame then realized the joke*
*was also about to flame, realized the joke, then loled at the reference*
*Dies from laughter*
1. 1990 was not “almost 40 years ago.”
2. Might have been funny if you went for a Schwarzenegger reference instead. Or maybe Bristol or Sarah Palin (depending on whom you believe to be the mother).
lulz
Making abortion illegal would only make things worse. I would never have an abortion myself, as I would never forgive myself, but I wouldn’t make it against the law. Women would still have them, they would just be in back rooms, with coat hangers. Can we say infection?
That being said, why does no one consider adoption? There are people that want babies. There are people who would want YOUR baby. Why kill it if it has a chance to be loved?
Plenty of people consider adoption. That’s why there are kids up for adoption.
The ones that stay there until they’re 18 are ones brought in from social services usually over the age of 5. Babies and toddlers put up for adoption are adopted from the thousands on waiting lists.
Is it fair that people only want babies? Not really but understandable.
You’re right. That’s not selfish at all.
I agree. People think that if they’re over a certain age and not adopted, they must have horrible behavioral issues, but most times, that’s not the case.
So adopt an older child who needs a loving home, instead of waiting for a baby.
Then again, please don’t. We don’t need more children to grow up with unrealistic attitudes.
- I’d be traumatized knowing I have child I’ll never see because I gave him away. Just because I think the time is not right for me to have children doesn’t mean I wouldn’t love my children if I had them. I’m not even going to assume you can understand that seeing as you seem to think of babies as trade goods.
- Most adopted kids have issues – “Who are my biological parents, where do I come from? Why didn’t they want me? What would my life be like if they had raised me? Should I try to meet them, could I even find them in the first place? I wonder if I ever crossed passed with my biological mother without even knowing because I don’t know what she looks like. That new teacher has the same eyes as me, could she be my mom?”
If you think about abortion as killing, then putting a child for adoption is better than abortion. But if you think of abortion as nothing more than not creating a child, then abortion seems better.
- “Why kill it?” – I don’t think I’m killing a child by aborting in the first place, so there you go. As for “There are people who would want YOUR baby” – that’s just creepy. Seriously, tell me you people are doing something better than plain human traffic after you just wrote this sentence.
That would be fine if the system weren’t already overcrowded (BTW, you would know your adoption argument has already been mentioned several times had you actually read any of the other comments)
A good friend of mine from when I was in elementary school had been in the system her entire life. She wasn’t adopted as a baby, as a toddler, as a pre-teen or as a teen ager. She was bounced between foster home to foster home and was abused at a few of them, neglected at others. She is currently 20 years old and was never EVER offered a home. She was depressed for the majority of her life, and honestly felt like she didn’t belong anywhere. We are no longer on good terms because she has decided that if no one wants anything to do with her, she doesn’t want anything to do with anyone else. She ended our friendship by telling me that she wished she hadn’t been born, and that she “was sure everyone else did too.”
I don’t know if you or the other people who push adoption instead of abortion realize these type of cases exist, or if you just don’t want to admit they do.
They’re right! America is going to hell, but it’s because dumb s***’s like them can’t read past the title of an article so obviously made up as this one… Gotta love ‘Merica.
Hey! I’m a’ American, an’ I love mah country! You got no right to insult my country!
*foams*
Why do we need an 8-billion dollar anything? No wonder we are in so much debt. And don’t we have enough ways to kill innocent babies who have done nothing wrong? I mean if the parents would not have slept together they would not have the baby. It’s called keeping it in your pants until you are ready to have a child!
I really hope you’re trolling.
sorry, i think all the spare hope got used up in the 2008 US presidential election.
No I’m not, sorry to burst your bubble.
Haven’t been following along, have ya?
Otherwise you would have read that the “$8 million abortaplex” story was NOT A REAL NEWS STORY.
POP!
Now, now. Don’t get upset at “Miss”. It is not her fault. The current US education system is merely too focused on test scores and firing teachers to teach individuals valuable life skills, in this case, common sense.
While I do think the educatin system has declined you should read what I wrote below about trying to prove a point. That point being it seems the world hates people who are against abortion. And I have common sense, but schools don’t teach that.
Guess what? I have been following along so I know it’s not real. Read my last comment to see.
POP! to you too.
So, you’re pro life, sex negative, and too stupid to read even a handful of comments before posting?
No just trying to prove a point, read comment below.
Yay people keep proving me right! Once again my thoughts on reactions are right. I knew that if I posted something agreeing with the people in the post that people would think I was with them and believed in the article. Oh how good it feels to know people will react the way you think they will. Thanks for being sterotypical.
How is thinking people who say stupid things are stupid stereotypical? We’re perhaps a little gullible, although the level of stupidity you displayed is hardly unusual for pro-lifers.
One Internets for a successful troll. Minus one Internets for ruining it by pointing it out to everyone who replied to you.
You’re too kind. I’d have put her at minus one internets, not zero.
Also, Miss, the only stereotype that was fulfilled was feeding the troll (in this case: you). Honestly, I see much more hate and strong emotions from pro-life than pro-choice people. I have to agree that the trolling was well done, though. Also, you can’t really say the most patient person in this thread so far has answered with hate (if anything, he kind of trolled you back). He even insults with politeness.
Ben, I want to be like you when I grow up.
Oh oh, can I be your padawan?
You don’t want to be like me. I have done many terrible things in my time…
Of course, I did them very politely. Each civilization I incinerated from orbit went out thinking I was a very nice young person, and they hoped their children would be charred beyond recognition into a shape somewhat resembling me.
As for being my padawan, do you have access to a SNES?
SNES!
Oh, Master, most surely I do! Just don’t say it’s the next thing I’ll be hoping to look like you. No charring it, if you may. It’s one of the few treasures this padawan of yours managed to keep. (aside from a NES with the pistol…)
I would never wish to harm such a marvel of technology. Your SNES is safe with me.
Then I’m at your service, Master. *lowers head*
I don’t care about your internets so you can keep them. I’ve seen the horrible comments that get “over 9000 internets” and I don’t want to be in that group. I’m not a troll. Again just wondering why some groups are hated and others are loved.
Honestly, why aren’t my comments showing up!?
You were a troll, in your comment. You said something explicitly for the purpose of attracting strong (which means usually negative) responses from people. Then you shrugged them off saying that you already expected that. Thing is: you baited for exactly the kind of reply you wanted, to get exactly the kind of people you wanted to criticize. I’m not sure you succeeded there, because some of the replies were not against your ideals, but against the lack of attention you emulated by meaning you didn’t read the article and didn’t know it was fake.
If your message had been more on the lines of “I know The Onion is fake, but I agree wholeheartedly with the opinions they expressed.” the replies would have been different, beginning a discussion on abortion and not on idiocy. Also, if one of the replies was hateful, you would have an example to confirm your theory that pro-lifers are hated.
I have many friends who are pro-life, most of my family is as well, and I risk saying my country is too. Our president almost lost a lot of support (before she was elected) because people thought she was pro-choice. Maybe she is, but she had to say she wouldn’t put this discussion forth during her mandate. So, no hate here.
Also, I see much more hate coming from pro-lifers than from pro-choicers. “You” are the ones who picket in front of clinics yelling at people, who oppress women who had abortions or are pregnant and make them feel worse in their already fragile emotional state, who say “we’re” m*rd*rers and all. But that’s only what I read in the news. Maybe pro-choicers do a lot of bad things too. And I’d hate to be generalized with them if they did. Like you disliked being grouped with the idiotic people who yelled at The Onion without reading it and seeing it was a joke.
So, if you were called stupid after people noticed your bait, it was more about how you did your trolling than on what your beliefs really are.
/repost
You have come a long way, young padawan. I sense that the Force is strong within you. You have great potential.
So…Mario Kart?
*tears up*
Thank you, Master… I won’t let you down.
*looks around*
*uses the Force to put the game into the console*
Mario Kart! Dibs on Koopa Troopa!
Excellent. I’ll take Bowser >:D
O-oh!
It seems I’ll have to be very careful not to be run over by Master.
What lessons of grandness will you teach me through this game?
Too harsh? Well I take that back. One guy commented that I deserved to be r*ped because I did not think abortion was right and it got put through. How they let that slide I still have no idea! Even people who dissagreed with me said that was uncalled for.
Yup, I agree with you there.
Discussions about beliefs tend to be emotional, and it’s hard to keep a level head. Or people don’t even want to. So I always enter them knowing it’ll bring out the worst in everyone, and willing to forget all about it after the discussion ends.
So, it’ll be good to end a discussion with us agreeing. : ) At least agreeing that such a comment is uncalled for. It doesn’t solve any of our issues, though. : P
Agreed. Nice to see somebody on this website that has a sense of knowing when to just say enough.
I was actually talking about how the pro-choice people think all pro-life people are idiots, which you prove again. I’m not stupid, just trying to figure out why some groups are picked on.
From experience, pro-life arguments are often idiotic. Not to say all pro-lifers are idiots, but it’s definitely not uncommon to come across pro-lifers who are as idiotic as your comment.
Thus, it’s not really inappropriate to assume that an idiotic comment, which falls within the established realm of idiocy for the group of which the commenter claims to be a member, is genuine.
So if I say from experiecne all Muslims are terroists it’s OK for me to assume they all are? Even though there are plenty out there who are nice and not terroists? I still say not all pro-life people are idiots so you need a new image of them. All I’m saying is you can’t judge people just because of one thing.
“Not to say all pro-lifers are idiots”
It’s interesting how, in making your point, you’re willing to completely ignore what people are saying to you.
To use your analogy, from experience, there are terrorists who are Muslim. Thus, when someone is observed yelling “death to infidels, praise Allah” before detonating a bomb in a crowded venue, it’s reasonable to assume this person is both a terrorist and Muslim, rather than going to great lengths to teach me a lesson about my own prejudice.
You really should learn to read before you try to educate people.
I’d even say that the tiniest part of them have anything to do with t*rror, and perhaps the smallest part of pro-lifers are idiots. The prejudice is built because both the Muslims who are terr*rists and the pro-lifers who are idiots are the loudest.
Unblock the names, so we know who these idiots are.
^this
I <3 the onion, good for trolling my FB friends
Me + The Onion = Love
Can’t tell if these people are trolling or just very stupid.
██████░██░░░░░░█████▄░████▄░███▄░█
░░██░░░██░░░░░░██░░██░██░░█░░░░█░█
░░██░░░██░░░░░░██░░██░████▀░░░█░░█
░░██░░░██░░░░▀░██░░██░██░░█░░█░░░█
░░██░░░█████░█░█████▀░██░░█░░▄░░░▄
░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
Damnit…they broke my semicolon…
Oh it musta hurt.
██░░██░░░░░█░░░
██░░██░░░░█░█░░
██████░░░█░░█░░
██░░██░░██████░
██░░██░█░░░░░░█ (only one because I can’t find a generator for whatever the fùck this is called)
It’s a kind of ASCII art, I don’t know if writing like that has a name for its own.
Apparently not.
People advocating abstinence make me kinda stabby. I went through puberty at 10, am currently 30 and have no immediate plans to form babby. Why would I keep it in my pants for 20 years when there are some pretty reliable birth control options out there. And if one more person suggests “keeping legs closed” I’m gonna start making a list of sex positions that allow me to do just that.
LIKE! I think that the “keep the legs closed” people are only aware of Missionary-style sex…
please do!!!
“Form babby?”
What is your native language? (srsly, I’m just curious.)
It’s an old Internet meme. Google “How is babby formed.”
As soon as the so-called pro-lifers begin adopting and caring for the millions of un-wanted children in the world, I may listen to them. But, you know, they only want blonde, blue eyed cute Nordic babies, not one of, pardon the expression, “THEM.”
Abortion is not about the embryos anyway, it’s about who owns and controls a woman’s body. The State, the church, her husband, whoever. What about the concept that a woman owns and controls her bodY?
In a free and equal society abortion should not even be a topic for discussion. If the female is able to get pregnant, she should be able to get an abortion if she wishes, without any stigma.
^this.
Just to throw this out there… The baby inside that woman’s body has it’s own body. It is not a part of hers.
Wait, Little_Elmo – so that umbilical cord, placenta formed from the Mother’s tissue, shared blood, food and nutrient supply are not the Mum’s!? Mayo Clinic book publishers are going to get a call from me!
The blood supply is not shared. If a mom is A+ and a dad is B+, the baby they create would be AB+. Those 2 separate, individual blood streams could not possibly be shared. Yes, the baby needs the mother to provide the nourishment. So what? Would you say a breastfed baby was a part of the mother, since it shares her nutrients?
The body of the baby, the part that is alive and would thus be killed during an abortion, is a separate person. NOT a part of the mother.
It could actually have AB-, A+, B+, A-, B-, O+ and O- blood type too, you know that, right?
So in your opinion, from the point where it has a circulatory system and blood, it’s considered a baby’s body and thus should not be killed? That would be by around day 20-22 from conception.
Well, for me, it’s when it has brainwaves. For my boyfriend, it’s when it can act human (namely be able to talk), until then it’s no different from a cat, dog, or cow.
Brainwaves = 40 days gestation
Most women don’t even know they’re pregnant by then.
Talking happens anywhere between 10 and 18 months, in general. So would your boyfriend consider infanticide just a routine abortion?
Yes, I corrected myself down there somewhere, saying it isn’t actually brainwaves what matter, but what it’s done with them. Personally I wouldn’t go past 6 weeks, but I don’t have much scientific data to back this up and I don’t go anywhere close to intending to define the line.
As for my boyfriend, he doesn’t consider it abortion, but he doesn’t consider the baby a full person either, he values much more the rights of the mother. He doesn’t support infanticide (of course!), but he really could care less about where the line for abortion is drawn. As long as it’s not so early as to hinder choice.
At sufficiently early stages of development, the fetus is not sentient. It has no agency.
And at what point does a fetus gain sentience, in your opinion? As far as science is concerned, the exact age is unknown. Where do you draw the line?
I do not have an opinion. I do not know. The exact point is unimportant. Find a point when the fetus could not be sentient, and draw your line there.
sentience?!? worrying about the baby instead of the mother is your FAIL.
Sentience comes with a responsibility on our part to respect certain rights. Which rights are up for debate. If you choose a point before the child can be considered sentient, then there’s no issue – you’re merely breaking apart cells. After that, the issue becomes more complex, but that doesn’t mean I would worry about the baby instead of the mother. Can I not worry about both?
The mother, being fully sentient and self aware, would obviously have more rights. Her choice would take precedence, particularly in the early days when sentience is simple.
How can you even be sure there is a point when they are not sentient? I really don’t think even the best medical science is advanced enough to check for brainwaves of a fetus at or shortly after conception. The closest measurable brainwaves have been said to occur at around 40 days, but even then it’s uncertain if that is a mark of sentience or not. The point is, if you can’t know, how can you say it as a fact?
You can’t have sentience without a sufficiently complex brain.
good one, Ben – half of the posters on here (AND ALL OF THE IDIOTS IN THE INITIAL POST) obviously don’t have a sufficiently complex brain
realistically, who gives a flying fart at a rolling doughnut about sentience – the bottom line is this, “do you want this baby?” and “can you afford this baby?” If either answer is no – what are you Pro-Life morons gonna do? I really can visualize the barren Iowa couple adopted a crack-baby from Baltimore. It’s just what they always wanted!
the baby does not magically form as a baby the first day it is conceived.
At the beggining, it’s a mass of duplicated cells. then it splits in two different species of cells, half form the fetus and half the amniac sack.
From THEN on, the fetus’s cells split to three different kind of cells: endo-meso and epithelium cells.
THEN ON the endothelium cells will start moving to form something like a straw- which THEN will form something like a flower, flower being the brain.
In several weeks’ time.
FACTS, studied them.
But that’s not the point!
If you really want to save money from supporting unemployed, single moms and stuff:
Give condom discount to young couples-ESPECAILLY TEENS.
TEACH THEM goddamit! Teach them to use condoms properly.
TEACH the priests to preach about protection in church.
Not abstinence, kids have hormones, have urges and curiosity.
Knowledge is power.
Prevernt abortion by preventing unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.
Exactly!!
PREVENTION works a heck of a lot better if teens have good access and education when it comes to birth control.
If society was more equal in terms of sexual roles and power, and if kids and adults both had more access and the ability to control this, you’d see a huge drop in unwanted pregnancies. That’s why birth rates ALWAYS drop in a society when women become more educated – suddenly, the role of women in society is not simply that of child-bearing mothers, and they delay having children longer as a society until they can AFFORD to have them.
Oh.
Then I’ll correct myself: it starts having rights not when it has brainwaves, but when it can have some conscience of self.
Yes, the embryo/fetus has its own “body,” which is initially an undifferentiated mass of cells. Which is also entirely dependent on the woman’s body for oxygen and nourishment.
Next time you find a tick on you, LEAVE IT ALONE! It has its own body, after all.
Does it have human DNA, which comes equipped with an inherent right to life?
There is no such thing as inherent rights. We afford rights based on certain, hopefully objective, criteria. There is nothing in human DNA which says “This organism has an inherent right to life. Please do not kill it.”
Humans have a right to life. Period. I’m just saying I don’t think it should be exclusive to only certain humans.
Certain humans, as in, those who can actually think and participate in society versus those who are still a bunch of disorganized cells and don’t have a clue about what the world is? Is it okay that the said right to life enslaves a formed and active human being?
After all, it’s her body the fetus is feeding from, it’s her body that will deform, it’s her body that will grow and become irrecognizable, it’s her mind that will have post-birth depression, it’s her eyes that will get bags from sleepless nights either from caring for an unwanted baby or for worrying about a baby that was given up, it’s her self-esteem that will go rock bottom.
“those who can actually think and participate in society”
Using that definition, infants do not have a right to life.
I’ve been pregnant twice. Given birth twice. Yet I was never a “slave” to anyone or anything. And my body was never “irrecognizable”, nor has my self-esteem been impacted.
You should really not speak about things you don’t know.
I don’t even think I’ve ever heard any of the moms on “16 and pregnant” say they felt like a slave. Yes, they do say that it’s difficult being a mom at a young age, but then they go on to say “…so I wish I had waited to have sex.” At the very least, be protected.
So you’ve had good experiences. Great. I know women who’ve had terrible experiences.
Your good experiences do not give you the right to speak for all pregnant women, nor to determine what they do with their bodies.
Humans should have a right to life. I agree. I also think that many other species should enjoy that right, but that’s a discussion for another time.
As I said, though, this is because human beings are sentient. They are aware of their existence, and can feel pain, and fear death. The DNA patterns of an organism are irrelevant, and entirely arbitrary. There may be life on other planets which deserves the same right and doesn’t even have DNA as it exists on Earth.
We assign rights by valuable, sensible criteria, not by completely arbitrary traits which those we assign rights to have in common. Learn how ethics works before responding next time.
Actually, we assign rights based on “You’re a human. Boom, rights!”. The problem is the definition of what a “human” actually is. It should be based on what species you are, and on that alone.
In some countries, women still aren’t considered humans. They don’t have all the rights men (“humans”) have. Not too long ago, black people weren’t considered humans, even in developed countries. Yet we know that they are and have always been. More people just need to realize that before birth, we’re still human.
What does being human have to do with anything? It’s a completely arbitrary measure, and irrelevant in any ethical discussion. The important thing is what being human gives us – sentience, the capacity to feel pain, concern over what happens to us and our bodies. You can’t merely insist that humans have inherent rights. Defend your position, or yield.
Your comment demonstrates the exact opposite of what you’re trying to say. It’s not based on being human, having rights. Most societies that have notions of species will agree that women are of the same species as men, and that people from different races are also homo sapiens sapiens. But they still won’t have rights, because they’re “inferior”.
In our world, rights come with value. I’d hope it comes with sentience as Ben has been saying, because then, if we could find and prove that any other species in the planet is sentient they’d be inherently rightful, just like us humans.
When we prove that dolphins are more intelligent than us, I hope we’ll give them the right to vote as well (and then hopefully we’d get more people concerned about the islands of plastic in the pacific).
Read past the first line.
“The problem is the definition of what a “human” actually is.”
I said it is based on being loosely defined as “human”, and that it should be based on species alone.
“In some countries, women still aren’t considered humans. They don’t have all the rights men (“humans”) have.” etc.
Already said that.
Why do you insist on assuming inherent rights based on something which is a purely abstract concept created by humans which doesn’t correlate well to the real world?
Being seen as “inferior” is the same as being considered “less than human” or even not human at all. Thus women are not being given basic human rights in countries where they are not seen as equal.
That’s only your understanding of the situation. You’d have to go there and ask them what their reasoning is to give us less rights. Give me an article saying that they don’t consider us humans and I’ll believe you. Otherwise, I know for a fact that there are universities and scientists in countries where women have less rights, like Iran, and they include women among homo sapiens sapiens.
It’s what goes on inside the female minds (or derived alleged attitudes) that is less valued. Not what goes on the DNA or the material of the skin.
Clearly they get that we’re the same species. I didn’t say they didn’t know what a species was. (I also have a comment above this one that is “awaiting moderation”).
I said it’s the way “human” is being defined as far as rights are concerned. Those countries still have what they consider “basic human rights”, but women don’t partake in those, making us not human under the law.
Still the same species, not the same under the law.
Same species, no human rights.
Get it now?
Relpy to Little_Emo…
“Clearly they get that we’re the same species. I didn’t say they didn’t know what a species was.”
Given that your definition of what a human is is based entirely on DNA, your definition of “human” is based on the concept of a species (which, I should point out, is a human-made concept which is fairly arbitrary and very grey in real life).
So, we have a situation where a country considers women to be human, but does not afford them basic human rights. The only logical conclusion is that this country does not respect basic human rights.
Reply to Ben…
How is being a species a “human-made concept”? Because it was a human who discovered we have a species and that not every animal is the same thing? That would be human-discovered, but not human-made. No human created us as an individual species. Whether you believe it was a God or an explosion, or some other theory, is irrelevant. It wasn’t a human.
Now, I define being human as being the species human. The law defines it differently depending on where you go. So while you may have misinterpreted it, what I said stands.
Little_Emo, it’s a fuzzy concept as in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem It is pretty much human-made, not human-discovered. We built the concept from observation, but it’s still fuzzy enough not to be a really precise concept (would a human and a chimpanzee be able to generate offspring?).
Also, I would say that the concept of human rights is 100% human-made. You think that it means everyone from the human “species” would be entitled to it. In the Declaration of Human Rights nothing is said about what it means to be human as far as the bill is concerned. Lots of people (and countries) don’t consider a bunch of cells that are alive and have human DNA to be a person, or worthy of rights. It takes weeks before that bunch of cells, or should I say, that small tumor, begins taking human characteristics, according to their standard.
That’s why I said that the concept of human you’re using is in your head. You can defend that this is how you think it should be. Also, countries that have really strong laws discriminating women and such are most likely not caring for human rights at all, since there are many other aspects on that Declaration that involves individuals from both genders and surely all races, that they don’t respect. I don’t think the problem lies with their concept of “human”, but rather with their concept of “rights”.
I have stated numerous times that, yes, it is my opinion that it should be based on species. Read it again. Should be, not is. Not will be, not would be, not has been. Should be. Should. My opinion. So your stating that “That is just how you see it, that’s only your perception, etc.” Yes, of course it is. I said that all along.
Actually, what you’ve done is assert that there exist intrinsic rights which are afforded on the basis of one’s DNA patterns.
Now, we’ve made the leap to acknowledging that this is your opinion of how things should be. This is a step forward.
What happens now is that you read back over the criticisms of your opinion, and defend it. This is what you have thus far failed to do. All you’ve done is reassert, as absolute fact, your unfounded and heavily criticised position.
Opinions can be right and wrong. When one attempts to force their own opinion on others, this distinction becomes vital.
No, I said we afford rights based on whether someone is “human” under the law. (That would be, being born, in case you didn’t understand). You’ve agreed with that part.
Otherwise, everything I said was stated as though it was my own opinion. I never asked (or tried to force) you to agree with my opinion. I just stated it. Just as you say I have no right to try to force you to take on my opinion, you have no right to try to force me to accept yours, whether or not yours may be the one currently held by the law. I don’t have to agree with you that because it is legal to abort, that that makes it right or ok.
I could quote you, but forget that. We’re onto the “this is opinion” phase. Good work.
Now, you are attempting to force your opinion on others. I assume that you are able to vote, and that when you do, a candidate’s stance on abortion is an important factor to you. You’ve made your stance clear, and people generally vote for candidates who hold the same position as they do, so in that regard, I assume you are attempting to force your opinion on others.
Beyond assumption, you’ve been arguing restlessly throughout this thread. It is quite clear that you disapprove of abortion, and you keep arguing the point. This is not the behaviour of someone with a “live and let live” attitude. You are trying to change peoples’ minds, and influence their behaviour.
To preempt you, yes, I am also trying to change peoples’ minds, and by my own argument, to force my opinion onto others. The difference between you and me is that your opinion also carries with it certain actions. Your opinion would force women to deal with pregnancy a certain way (that is, to carry to term). My opinion would give all women the choice, to abort or not to abort.
You will no doubt say that my opinion also has an impact on the fetus, and this is perfectly true. This is why we are having this discussion. I maintain that sentience is a requirement for the assignment of rights, while you would choose to do it on the basis of DNA alone.
If you wish to discontinue this discussion, I will not take it as a concession. This is getting quite lengthy, and I assume we both have other responsibilities. I will probably discontinue this discussion myself in the next few posts if it does not progress.
“Little_Emo May 23, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Does it have human DNA, which comes equipped with an inherent right to life?”
This is one of the things you said that brought this part of the discussion up. You said it like it is the truth: human DNA comes equipped with a right to life – but it’s you who think that, and I was trying to make you notice it. I’m glad we got that settled.
Human DNA doesn’t come equipped with rights in our society, and I don’t even think it should, because this is simply too broad for me. Lots of things have human DNA. Tumors do, babies who are absorbed by their twins do, babies with serious illnesses do, not to mention embryo cells and the HeLa cells, which have been reproduced endlessly up to today. And if you’re going to give concessions to any of those situations (like fetuses with serious congenital defects), then the criteria for rights is no longer simply the presence of human DNA. This is the grey area that surrounds the discussion of abortion. The law is giving human rights to born humans (I’m talking about places where abortion is allowed) and stretches it into the unborn humans a bit, gladly not enough to hinder too much the rights of the born human that is caring for it. It’s then that we appeal to science, because, honestly, the government can’t, or shouldn’t, choose from the many beliefs about soul and life. We can’t test that, and we can’t prove that one of the religions is correct in detriment of the others.
I wouldn’t mind continuing this discussion, even more so because I only come around once a day, or less, but I understand if any of you wish to discontinue it. And of course it won’t mean a “defeat”. As I see it, there’s no winning and defeating in discussing – only growing in knowledge for both sides.
Actually, once the tick has been on you long enough – you could argue it does contain some human DNA – taken from the host, but still..
I think this is going to prove a headache
I’ll rephrase: Is its own DNA that of a human?
The DNA of cancerous cells is most definitely human. Same with all other human cells. Yet we do not afford rights to these cells. We give rights to fully formed, active human beings who are capable of feeling pain, pleasure, and emotion. Which doesn’t apply to zygotes, embryos, or early fetuses.
How early are we talking here, where you think a fetus fits none of those criteria?
- Fully formed, ok, so by approximately 12 weeks gestation. Is that not early?
- Active? Well, a woman can start to feel kicking somewhere around 16-ish weeks. It’s faint, but it’s there. Before that, it’s merely a case of the baby not being big enough for it to be felt by the mother, but there is active movement none-the-less.
- Human beings, well, got that by default since no woman has ever carried any other species inside her.
- Capable of feeling pain. Proven to be at least as early as 22 weeks.
- Feeling pleasure and/or emotion, well, we know a newborn infant feels a sort of pleasure after being fed or having a messy diaper changed. More a feeling of comfort, really. Beyond that, nothing can really be proven as far as newborns feeling “emotions”. And no one really knows when that starts, but it doesn’t just switch on at birth.
Personally, I think 12 weeks is good enough to draw the line. 3 months is usually enough for a woman to notice pregnancy (not sure about making her mind, though). But I’m not a doctor, or scientist, or anything, it’s just where I would draw my line if I ever had to make an abortion, because I’d err on the side of caution. Ideally, I would have done it no later than the 5th week.
But, since I’m not a doctor or scientist as previously mentioned, nor a woman who is pregnant for more than 12 weeks and still doesn’t feel the fetus, doesn’t relate to it, and doesn’t want it… I won’t make this call. I’ll leave it for others who understand the process better than me.
That’s part of being pro-choice. I don’t even intend to have all of the knowledge required to be making choices for other people. Be it personal or scientific knowledge.
Also, I need to cut down on my usage of “also”s and “but”s. (insert 5th grade laughter here)
ButI also like buts a lotalsobecause they’re cute and full of booty./randomness
Not to mention, if you listen closely to the ‘don’t abort, give away for abortion’ freaks, you’ll realize they go for babies like zombies for brains. Well, that’s what they sound like at least.
They actually don’t treat babies respectfully, ethically or humanely. To them, babies are items you trade and exchange. They just oppose abortion not because they care about babies but because their god says abortion is bad.
And they know it. That’s why in the ‘pro-life vs. pro-choice’ debate they don’t adopt a condescending ‘I’m a better person than you’ attitude, unlike other debates they engage in.
Listen to them closely, it gets creepy fast.
i like to jack off on dead fetus’
I had a friend in high school who gave her baby up for adoption, and this screwed her up. I had a condom break and got pregnant when I was a young adult, and an abortion followed a few months later. I never felt guilty, and I know it was the right decision. Abortion should never be up for debate. EVER! Someone who is against abortion won’t be forced to do it. Because of this, someone who choses abortion should never be prevented from seeking one or made to feel shame or guilt.
Frankly, when a woman says she aborted, I have no issue with it. When she aborted and starts questioning her decision, I support her so she doesn’t start to regret it.
But some people think it’s better to help her to feel guilty, and then to say to everyone else “see, I told you, most women who abort end up regretting it!”.
go ahead and kill your child if you want, JUST DON’T USE MY TAX DOLLARS to fund your promiscuity and lack of good judgement
The first line made me lolz. The rest was tl;dr.
Get out.
Normally, I would give you the medal for the greatest fail, but this page is just so full of them…
Still, good effort.
You might try reading factual articles rather than the Onion, then. Tax dollars don’t go towards abortions when it comes to funding groups like Planned Parenthood – the money they get from taxpayers is for health services and cannot be used for abortion services.
Seriously, do you read?
This image has the first comment lopped off. Here is another pic:
i.imgur dot com/p4CFW dot png
You will notice the FIRST post was from the theblaze.com’s Facebook post.
The Blaze is a Glenn Beck website.
They still have the post up, but it says that the Onion piece is satire.
theblaze dot com/blog/2011/05/18/planned-parenthood-opens-8-billion-abortionplex/
Did they ALWAYS say that and their readers are stupid, or did they just change it and they are even more stupid than their readers?
“dumb dumb dumb” she described herself without knowing it.
The onion just loves to troll stupid/gullible people XD
LOL I am pro-life..but Come on! People are so stupid. You just spread it around in mass hysteria? READ then repost. It’s a good practive to have lol
Bahaha..PRACTICE. I should learn to type
“Buying contraception, which is a silent abortion, is keeping planned parenthood alive. We can take this beast down by repenting. War is a punishment for men’s sins. Wakeup America and repent.”
lolol Planned Parenthood gives contraception out for free, so buying a condom would kinda diminish the need for PP. and did the onion also run a report about war being punishment for men’s sins? coulda sworn war was the sin…. WEEEEE Triple Fail!
Pro Life. Love the fetus. Hate the child.
Pro Life. Love the fetus. Hate the child. Get trolled a lot.
I wish i could think of something witty to add.
I guess the Christianity in me slows brain function.
how about all those in favor of abortions keep having them and those not in favor don’t and after a few generations = debate solved thru self annihilation.
Equality,
You are in the very least intelligent enough to know that people who believe abortion should be a woman’s choice are also parents, grandparents and fathers among young men and women whom do not have children…right? Please tell me you’re not ignorant enough to believe that all pro-choice people have no children.
Oh, if this PoV was spread, it’d solve the debate for me.
I think I’ll start spreading it myself!
can’t tell if trolling. . . or just really stupid. . .
I saw “Idiocracy”, too! None of the characters in that movie knew how to properly use capitalization or spell “through” either.
lol what Titanic was that one person watching? That movie was like 3 hours long of boring drivel and everyone dies at the end. so I guess that person is for abortion and would probably even wait in a 3 hour line for one?
anybody else see the irony in that header? “planned parenthood” right…abortion is quite the opposite
No it isn’t because with abortion a woman is allowed to PLAN to have a kid when she is financially stable and prepared for PARENTHOOD.
And maybe if you did a little research, you’d find that abortions AREN’T the only thing that Planned Parenthood does.
I don’t see what you people are whining about. It’s her body and her mind so let her do with it as she pleases. And technically you aren’t considered “alive” until you are born because at three months NO human fetus can survive outside the womb. Late term abortions are a different story and should only be used if the child is killing the mother (unless you pro-life fools would like to have both the mother and child die).
And Planned Parenthood also prevents the need for abortions by handing out CONTRACEPTIVES and gives screenings for cancer and STDs including the big killer HIV/AIDS. Don’t down them because you don’t agree with one thing that they provide.
Besides all that, this article was funny. All those people re-posting the article and screaming nonsense. Get your Bible’s out your rears and actually read it. What these women do with their wombs and what floats in them should be between her and her god.
“The Onion” rocks.
I facepalm for this comment thread and its participants, myself included. I further facepalm for feeling the need to preemptively clarify.
Where’s lorem ipsum guy when you really need him?
I’m amazed how many people don’t know about the Onion but more amazed that even if they didn’t, they couldn’t spot an obvious joke article. Good lord.
Psst, by the way, Harry Potter is turning kids on to Satan worship! It’s true, I read it in the Onion.
I knew it! I knew it! I’m reposting this as my FB status!!!
It’s things like this that make me suggest a mandatory “Meet The Onion” assembly in all schools. You know, so people can learn early on what The Onion is?
Of course, if The Onion runs the assemblies, they’d just troll entire schools at once. Someone bring a video camera!
-IMP
Oh, oh, my stomach hurts from laughing. “Women are so stupid to fall for this.”
It is just unBELIEVEable how willfully ignorant and credulous your average ProLife true believer is — it was nice of them to take time out from waiting for the Rapture to reply to this — bless their tiny little intolerant hearts
What’s that I see flying by? A pro-choice Christian, could it be?
It’s true, we do exist!
Hahaha while I don’t want to give an “Amen to that”, I gotta admit it’s awesome to know there are pro-choice Christians. Btw I’m a pro-life agnostic, but I respect opinions (I wouldn’t be agnostic if I didn’t lol)
Hah, thanks. And I’m a lady, too! My feelings on the matter are based on the fact that it’s someone else’s body and situation. Abortion is impossible to argue over because there’s no way to generalize a situation in which it may or may not be the better option. Oh, and I’m a preacher’s kid. Breaking a stereotype, what’s up?
OH MY GOD THERES TWO OF THEM!!!
/highfives other pro-choice Christian lady
you arent all pro-choice?
but i thought God gave you free will?
i sense a paradox that can only be solve by saying God doesnt exist…
$8 billion dollars!!!! coat hanger anyone?
Oh, my sweet summer child, what do you know of fear? Fear is for the winter, my little lord, when the snows fall a hundred feet deep and the ice wind comes howling out of the north. Fear is for the long night, when the sun hides its face for years at a time, and little children are born and live and die all in darkness while the direwolves grow gaunt and hungry, and the white walkers move through the woods” – Lord Snow
mother teresa lived before nukes or abortion was invented
Actually, abortions have been recorded throughout history. The first ever recorded abortion was guessed to be from the diminishing greek city states to the early roman empire. While their methods were considered to be primitive to our standards today, it still counts as an abortion itself.
Some people should just stay out of the Internet….
congratulations! You have made it ALL the way to the bottom of this page full of trolls and people feeding trolls.
Thank you, bill! Do I get a prize? I feel so tired I think I deserve one. : )
…and these morons vote against education AND they vote for the POTUS. Barf-icity.
Oh wow!
Wow… Those reactions… Lol what are they complaining about? There is nothing wrong with it… Once again, I’m glad I live in the Netherlands, where all women can get an abortion and where gay people can marry and stuff and where we can curse all we want =D
Can I move to the Netherlands? This place has too much stupid. . . It makes me itch. I think I’m allergic or something.
Oh, the netherlands… I still want to move there for a while.
Abortionplex! Maybe if I start trying now I can get in sometime this summer! I’m so glad Planned Parenthood finally rethought their mission and is now more focused on abortion, which really is the only valuable service they provide. Now I don’t even need to take the free condoms when I go in or listen to any of their nonsense about other forms of birth control and practicing safe sex. Who needs it anyway?
Really people? Maybe you should pay a visit to any Planned Parenthood location and learn a little bit about what they do. I promise you won’t burst into flames the second you walk through the door. Also, those of you who preach abstinence only, when has that EVER worked? I promise it never will. You can’t change the fact that people have sex, so instead why don’t you focus on educating your children about it? Or, if you won’t, at least allow Planned Parenthood to do it for you.
And yes, accidents do happen, I don’t try to deny that in the least. So, for future reference, when anyone other than me has any say in what grows in my uterus please let me know so I can start planning the revolution.
Abstinence didn’t work for Mary.
600 comments. That may be a record.
In that case do we call Guinness or buy one?
Really who would ever believe that this could be built in Topeka, KS with Phelps marching around this would never even get close to happening. Not to mention the whole Kansas is extremely Republican.
It is a law that federal funds cannot be used for abortions. Only 3% of the services performed by PP are abortions. Not all PP locations provide abortion services. Please get educated about the facts America.
A living thing becomes conscious when it receives its soul and ki (and yes, even plants have these things). This happens at the time of the quickening. Many people believe that this takes place in the second trimester.
Until the time of the quickening, the body is a mere shell, it is the soul and ki that are alive. If that shell were fated to be unloved, or so badly damaged that the soul inside it were going to be forced to live in pain, would it be fair to condemn that soul to such torment when it could find a much more suitable environment at a later time?
I think we should leave this question to science. Not to disrespect your beliefs, but they don’t have a place in law or government policy. The same is true of any non-secular belief.
I believe he knew exactly what he was doing. If Christians alone are to influence the legislation regarding abortion, that would mean unequal protection of those who have other beliefs about the soul of a fetus, violating the 14th amendment. We can’t let beliefs influence legislation, as people not of those beliefs are essentially discriminated against.
Yes! Because science will solve all of life’s problems!
Ben isn’t one of those really unusual names, but I’m still glad we can’t choose our avatars here… : )
My master has a witty triangle against your douchy hexagon!
To date, it’s certainly done a better job than anything else.
same was said about ancient Rome government. that is a horrible way to determine whether it actually works or not. Tossing out science is stupid, just as tossing out religion is stupid. its ridiculous to hear that people say your world view should effect science, when the ones saying that are using their own world view to come to that conclusion…
I never said anything about tossing out religion. I am merely pointing out that, to date, scientific inquiry has done more to raise standards of living and quality of life than anything else. That’s a pretty good indicator that it works.
The funny thing about science, though, is that if it doesn’t work, it changes so that it works. It’s self-correcting. This is the very nature of science.
*the very awesomeness of science.
If science was a religion, I’d be a scientologist – erm… not.
HAHA There’s a better way than spending all that money for efficiency. Just give patients abortion pills (yes that is real, no it is not the same as plan B), then they can go home and have the abortion over the toilet. It really is much more efficient, and less costly for the state!
Too long.
Didn’t read.
wow that was painfully funny, and saddening that those people are so gullible. Im wondering if they are just looking for something to jump on the conservatives must destroy this… bus for.
I just love how one person talks about how stuff like condoms and birth control pills are bad. What else is everyone supposed to use when they’re 16 doing the woohoo dance?
I love the Onion. Best news source in the history of history.
People who believe all they see on the onion make me laugh. Though I’m surprised so many people did….. xD
Hear me! Gather round! This has been a day for glorious triumph for The Onion! This is so much win XD
They all need to get laid.
I <3 AB0RT10N!!1!
I killed my neighbors with a golf trophy.
It must’ve been all those feelings.
Holy Kraken Krap! My neighbors are back from the dead!
Abortion, it really brings out the child in you.
as far as im concerened im pro choice, also as my brother once said when asked his oppinion on abortion- i am a guy i have no say in abortion it’s a woman’s choice what she does with her body. in a way i agree with this, but i believe if you are in a good relationship and able to suppost having a child you should not abort, and if in a stable relationship the man should have a say in what happens with his child