Drea Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 In the Spring or Summer I'll be setting up outside an Abortion Clinic using enlarged graphic Images. I'll also be planning to use comments made here on MLW. I plan to let the Pro-Choicers know so that they show up and in turn the media will be there as well. It's going to be a war. Be sure to leave your name and address with the clinic. So that you can monetarily support the women who you force to carry to term -- make sure to build a big nursery -- you are going to have a lot of new babies in your house! If I were in your area I would be there with my camera taking pictures of you folks, finding out who you are and making sure you pay for every single child that results from your actions. Women KNOW that abortion is not ideal. Why do you feel the need to force this on people? If you are against abortion, just don't have one. I am against religion, but do I go in there with signs saying you all are stupid for believing in an omnipotent god that does nothing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 (edited) what in idiot....Fetuses have no legal rights nor can they be considered legal human beings until born. A woman can terminate her unwanted pregnancy whenever she so desires. I am a socialist I reject the christ Clear enough for ya? This will be used in my display outside an abortion clinic, priceless and perfect. Thank you. You claim to be a socialist and therefore care about people unless they are unborn children. So by your above statement if a pregnant woman was assaulted which directly resulted in the miscarriage of her child he would face only the assault charge and no charges for killing her unborn child. The unborn child has no rights Rather cold but hey that is socialism right? Count me out. Drea, you've said yourself that you don't support abortion in its current state. That you'd like to see no abortions beyond 20 weeks unless special circs arise. So what's the problem. I want to get people talking about this again in the coffee shops and on buses . We need reform and I will push for it, hopefully I'll gather some sympathy along the way. Edited January 3, 2009 by Mr.Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 This will be used in my display outside an abortion clinic, priceless and perfect. Thank you. You claim to be a socialist and therefore care about people unless they are unborn children. So by your above statement if a pregnant woman was assaulted which directly resulted in the miscarriage of her child he would face only the assault charge and no charges for killing her unborn child. The unborn child has no rights Rather cold but hey that is socialism right? Count me out. Fear not; I counted out as a fruitcake bogus christian a long time ago. Happy to see you in the other camp actually. Do please carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 (edited) Socialists care about the living breathing human being. The rights of the woman carrying the fetus trump the fetus. How is that so difficult to understand? There is a fear that if abortion is restricted to a certain time limit... then it's not much of a stretch to restrict it completely. Very few abortions occur in the third trimester. Very few. Someone earlier posted a stat -- .8% -- less than 1% of all abortions are late term. More than likely, if you did your homework, you would see that these abortions occur because the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable and will not survive. I support restricting abortion to the first 20 weeks -- reasons for it are irrelevant. But we need to do this without the rapid prolifers using a "back door" to restrict abortion completely. Edited January 3, 2009 by Drea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 Socialists care about the living breathing human being.The rights of the woman carrying the fetus trump the fetus. How is that so difficult to understand? Life must be protected at all costs. Whine all you want abortion reform is coming whether you like it or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 what in idiot....Fetuses have no legal rights nor can they be considered legal human beings until born. A woman can terminate her unwanted pregnancy whenever she so desires. I am a socialist I reject the christ Clear enough for ya? What Peter said, except I'm not a socialist and I believe a woman not only can, but should be able to, terminate her unwanted pregnancy whenever she so desires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 (edited) This will be used in my display outside an abortion clinic, priceless and perfect. Thank you. You claim to be a socialist and therefore care about people unless they are unborn children. So by your above statement if a pregnant woman was assaulted which directly resulted in the miscarriage of her child he would face only the assault charge and no charges for killing her unborn child. The unborn child has no rights Rather cold but hey that is socialism right? Count me out. Drea, you've said yourself that you don't support abortion in its current state. That you'd like to see no abortions beyond 20 weeks unless special circs arise. So what's the problem. I want to get people talking about this again in the coffee shops and on buses . We need reform and I will push for it, hopefully I'll gather some sympathy along the way. Apathy will not save you. The faces of unborn children who aren't human beings according the the Pro-Choice supporters Edited January 3, 2009 by Mr.Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 Life must be protected at all costs. Whine all you want abortion reform is coming whether you like it or not. Only life in the womb though right? What about the children living in alcohol or drug addicted homes? Are you going to save them? How? What about the little old lady with the shopping cart on the street. Are you going to save her? Why not? She is a life is she not? What about the drug addict who will beat your grandmother to get her purse? Are you going to save him? Is his life worth less than a fetus? And I didn't whine. You only care about the life when it is in the womb and you cannot be truly responsible for it. Once you are asked to step up to the plate and actually save living human beings you sputter out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 (edited) Only life in the womb though right? What about the children living in alcohol or drug addicted homes? Are you going to save them? How? All life. There are already social agencies in place...CAS. What about the little old lady with the shopping cart on the street. Are you going to save her? Why not? She is a life is she not? What about the drug addict who will beat your grandmother to get her purse? Are you going to save him? Is his life worth less than a fetus? Help for adults is already in place. It is up to them to seek out help and help themselves first. If they have mental illness which many on the street do then it's up to society to house them with supervision and proper medical care. We need to do much better when dealing with the mentally ill on our streets. You only care about the life when it is in the womb and you cannot be truly responsible for it. Once you are asked to step up to the plate and actually save living human beings you sputter out. If the mother has chosen to be irresponsible it's societies duty to look out for those that cannot look out for themselves. Nothing is more defenseless then a baby. Edited January 3, 2009 by Mr.Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 If the mother has chosen to be irresponsible it's societies duty to look out for those that cannot look out for themselves. Nothing is more defenseless then a baby And then we make another choice: whether to abort the fetus or carry it to term. If it is, as you say, our choice to have sex (be irresponsible), then it is also our choice as to what happens after that. We can choose to run to the pharmacy and get the morning after pill. Or we can make an appointment with our doctor and discuss our options. As of today, in Canada, women have three options. 1. bring the fetus to term and keep the child, and whatever implications this may have on the woman's life. 2. bring the fetus to term and give the child up for adoption, never really knowing what happens to the child. 3. abort the fetus. These options get more convoluted when the male involved is aware of the pregnancy. In that case the woman must discuss the options with him as well, even though she does have the final say. She's like, the "President" of her body and can veto all decisions made by others regarding it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 (edited) Aborting is unacceptable as it breeds further irresponsibility and not responsibility. Drea, How can you advocate for abortion being an acceptable form of birth control? Proper values must be instilled at home. Values that say abortion is wrong and sex before marriage is immoral and wrong. 50 cent and TuPac or the simpsons do not provide acceptable values for kids. Kids need discipline and boundries. Parents today are trying to be friends of their kids and not setting boundries for them. Edited January 3, 2009 by Mr.Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitchener Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 We need reform and I will push for it, hopefully I'll gather some sympathy along the way. I'm sure you will get precisely the sympathy you earn with remarks about how "loose" women are for "fellatio duty" only. Rabidly sexist wingnuttery FTL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 I've never advocated that abortion be utilized as a birth control method. But because our current birth contol methods are not 100% effective (sans abstinance which is unrealistic -- people will have sex no matter if you tell them they "shouldn't" -- so let's leave that argument out of it, m'kay) abortion needs to be an option. Like it or not, we live in a world with two genders who are naturally desire sex with one another. The desire to have sex is not contingent on the desire to have a child. Many sexual encounters (most actually) are not "geared" toward impregnation, but for the joy of sex itself. If everytime a woman had sex, she would be impregnated -- lots of us would be exclusive to our vibrators! And men's right hands would be twice the size of their left Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitchener Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 Aborting is unacceptable as it breeds further irresponsibility and not responsibility. Allowing people to take aspirin for their hangovers is unacceptable, because it breeds further irresponsibility. Oh, and also, extra, additionally to irresponsibility, NOT RESPONSIBILITY!1!111! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 I'm sure you will get precisely the sympathy you earn with remarks about how "loose" women are for "fellatio duty" only.Rabidly sexist wingnuttery FTL! Oh really? If you want to have sex with what maybe a loose girl, that's up to you. I value myself too much for that. I ain't going to catch anything of some easy girl so she can go down on me for the first night just in case. I've never advocated that abortion be utilized as a birth control method.But because our current birth contol methods are not 100% effective (sans abstinance which is unrealistic -- people will have sex no matter if you tell them they "shouldn't" -- so let's leave that argument out of it, m'kay) abortion needs to be an option. Like it or not, we live in a world with two genders who are naturally desire sex with one another. The desire to have sex is not contingent on the desire to have a child. Many sexual encounters (most actually) are not "geared" toward impregnation, but for the joy of sex itself. If everytime a woman had sex, she would be impregnated -- lots of us would be exclusive to our vibrators! And men's right hands would be twice the size of their left Abortions need to be restricted. If people are going to have sex why can't they be responsible? Either that or every Non-Religious girl over 15 should be given the pill until married. That was we can keep an eye on what these brats are doing. What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 every Non-Religious girl over 15 Because religious girls are completely innocent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 Oh really? If you want to have sex with what maybe a loose girl, that's up to you. I value myself too much for that. I ain't going to catch anything of some easy girl so she can go down on me for the first night just in case. You loose man! You'd let a bacteria filled mouth on your penis???? Ewwww! Abortions need to be restricted. If people are going to have sex why can't they be responsible? Either that or every Non-Religious girl over 15 should be given the pill until married. That was we can keep an eye on what these brats are doing. What do you think? Cause we all know that "religious" girls never have sex. OMG! Give the girls the pill! Educated them! What a novel concept Mr. Canada! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 Abortions need to be restricted. If people are going to have sex why can't they be responsible? Either that or every Non-Religious girl over 15 should be given the pill until married. That was we can keep an eye on what these brats are doing. What do you think? I think you need to come back to Earth. Teenagers, regardless of religious affiliation, have been having sex since the beginning of time. Hell, look at that the Right Wing's Savior Princess; Sarah Palin. Her own damned kid got knocked up, despite her mommy being an abstinence-only supporter. And that's the real hypocrisy of your position, that somehow being a Christian means one doesn't have premarital sex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitchener Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 If you want to have sex with what maybe a loose girl, that's up to you. I value myself too much for that. I ain't going to catch anything of some easy girl so she can go down on me for the first night just in case. First night, just in case. Naturally. But if she's still giving you blowjobs after two weeks, why, then she's marrying material! Keep talking. I can feel that sympathy building as you show off your worldview and all its grand subtleties! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 (edited) You loose man! You'd let a bacteria filled mouth on your penis???? Ewwww!Cause we all know that "religious" girls never have sex. OMG! Give the girls the pill! Educated them! What a novel concept Mr. Canada! Hehe, I threw that in there for fun, just to see what you'd say. I think you're used to my foolishness now. It's frustrating is the point. Doing nothing and we have the situation we have now, that is unacceptable. Most likely all that will happen is that abortions will be banned past 20 weeks. That's imo anyhow. Just to recap I cannot remove and sell my kidney on ebay but any woman can kill stop a babies heart at will. I just wanted to make sure that was clear. Edited January 3, 2009 by Mr.Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 First night, just in case. Naturally. But if she's still giving you blowjobs after two weeks, why, then she's marrying material!Keep talking. I can feel that sympathy building as you show off your worldview and all its grand subtleties! If I chose to see her for that long, I may have not sometimes. You guys will all see who I am as I'll be on the news with any luck. Me and my quick wit and undeniable charm. I'll have pictures, pamphlets and my voice. I'll be unstoppable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 showtopic=13061&view=findpost&p=378201"]BC_Chick[/url], Lester_DC, WIP, jdobbin, eyeball, Jerry j. Fortin, Dr.Greenthumb, Molly, fellowtraveller, smallc, punked [/b]When I find more I'll add them to my list of posters who don't believe that aborted babies are human beings. And you are a supporter of murderers by supporting the Tory party. You are a hypocrite hiding behind an anonymous name. In the Spring or Summer I'll be setting up outside an Abortion Clinic using enlarged graphic Images. I'll also be planning to use comments made here on MLW. I plan to let the Pro-Choicers know so that they show up and in turn the media will be there as well. It's going to be a war. If you are not ashamed, you should make your name public now. I think you are ashamed if you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 Because religious girls are completely innocent. If one takes "innocent" to mean "naive, lacking adequate information," then often times yes. If one takes "innocent" to mean "abstinent until married"... hardly ever. I haven't read the whole thread, just the last couple of pages... and yet I've already slapped myself in the forehead a half dozen times from reading Mr Canada's theories. I need some Tylenol before I can continue. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitchener Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 In the Spring or Summer I'll be setting up outside an Abortion Clinic using enlarged graphic Images. I'll also be planning to use comments made here on MLW. I plan to let the Pro-Choicers know so that they show up and in turn the media will be there as well. It's going to be a war.... You guys will all see who I am as I'll be on the news with any luck. Me and my quick wit and undeniable charm. I'll have pictures, pamphlets and my voice. I'll be unstoppable. Of course. It's all about publicizing y- uh, I mean, the little babies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 Of course. It's all about publicizing y- uh, I mean, the little babies. No one would have stopped the Vietnam war were it not for the pictures. The impact of the Holocaust would have been much less without the pictures. The change of the abortion laws will not come about without pictures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.