| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
Ali G everybody
| |
Links are not allowed.
You are allowed to post every 1 minute on the same page.
You are allowed to post every 1 minute on the same page.
Remaining character count: 1000
#26
-
marlkarxthethird (03/21/2013) [+]
(33 replies)
Unlike eating from Burger King, abortion is a great way to lose weight fast.
#380 to #378
-
fractalius (03/23/2013) [-]
Oh I get there's no point to it. I was just making a "hivemind" like comment. I found it funny that someone else, wherever they were/are, had the exact same thought process as me at almost the exact same time. I found that funny so I made a comment about it. If it's "annoying" well that sucks for you, I couldn't care less.
#361 to #328
-
ompalomper (03/22/2013) [-] ever thinking badly about someone
not turning the other cheek when struck
not giving a mugger everything on your person
judging anyone, ever
all of these are against gods will. see you in hell with all us others
PS. fun fact: no human has ever gone to heaven
not turning the other cheek when struck
not giving a mugger everything on your person
judging anyone, ever
all of these are against gods will. see you in hell with all us others
PS. fun fact: no human has ever gone to heaven
#40
-
Cleavland Steamer (03/21/2013) [+]
(7 replies)
I was very very anti abortion, until I tried the flame grilled fetus and it was, you know... amazing.
#158 to #40
-
dirtyharold (03/22/2013) [-] I'm not as concerned with the person who posted this, as I am with the person who made it.
#172 to #49
-
crazehtoast (03/22/2013) [-] I shall spin you the tale of the greatest Lord.
For he was LordThymine.
His reaction images contained shopped portraits
of the very thing he sought to display.
In a strange sort of storm, he left in scorn.
And I believe he has come back to us today.
For he was LordThymine.
His reaction images contained shopped portraits
of the very thing he sought to display.
In a strange sort of storm, he left in scorn.
And I believe he has come back to us today.
#296 to #87
-
niggernazi (03/22/2013) [-] yeah becouse a serialkiller and an innocent baby both deserve to die.
ya fuckin retard
ya fuckin retard
#94 to #87
-
whymewhy (03/22/2013) [-]
there is a difference between a child who hasn't done anything wronge or right and a criminal who raped and killed an 90 year old (thats just one example) i am against abortion but am in favor of death penalty. think of it like this someone kills your mom or sister, do you wanna put them in prison for the rest of their life which could be 30 or more years knowing that your tax dollars are going to pay for your families killer to be fed,clothed,and given a small amount of health care.. or pay a 1 time fee and be done with the scum bag. i also think rape should be a death penalty crime.
#293 to #100
-
N. Korean citizen (03/22/2013) [-]
So what about the mother? Forget the baby for a second, let's talk about her.
The pregnancy either unwanted (due to individual reasons) or forced upon her (due to rape) causes quite a few problems for a woman. Ex: hormonal changes in pregnant women make them depressed extremely often. Depressed people tend to kill themselves. There's even post-natal depression. In that case, would you not be picking the child's safety over the mother's by even considering forcing said mother to go through something as likely as natal/postnatal depression? And mothers raped AND forced to have the child, might as well just hand them a cyanide pill because most of them are already dead.
What about the mother's body? Pregnancy makes mothers: get rashes, lose/grow hair, damaged vaginas, causes extreme stress, increased cancer risk, etc. All of these can turn out permanent, putting the baby over the mother's health.
It's not as simple as "the baby is being killed". Think about the human carrying it, too.
The pregnancy either unwanted (due to individual reasons) or forced upon her (due to rape) causes quite a few problems for a woman. Ex: hormonal changes in pregnant women make them depressed extremely often. Depressed people tend to kill themselves. There's even post-natal depression. In that case, would you not be picking the child's safety over the mother's by even considering forcing said mother to go through something as likely as natal/postnatal depression? And mothers raped AND forced to have the child, might as well just hand them a cyanide pill because most of them are already dead.
What about the mother's body? Pregnancy makes mothers: get rashes, lose/grow hair, damaged vaginas, causes extreme stress, increased cancer risk, etc. All of these can turn out permanent, putting the baby over the mother's health.
It's not as simple as "the baby is being killed". Think about the human carrying it, too.
#103 to #100
-
whymewhy (03/22/2013) [-]
unlike most here i respect you thinking for yourself, but tell me what do you think you should do to someone who rapes and murders your mom? what i am saying is hypothetically i raped your mother, then i killed her slowly over the course of a week, whats my punishment?
#116 to #103
-
malinwa (03/22/2013) [-] I would probably hate you and want to kill you myself but thats because I would be emotionally involved in that case.
I would however never do it because that would make me just as bad as you.
You would deserve to be in prison for life, without getting free after 20 years.
But that's just my opinion.
I would however never do it because that would make me just as bad as you.
You would deserve to be in prison for life, without getting free after 20 years.
But that's just my opinion.
#284 to #274
-
malinwa (03/22/2013) [-] I would rather pay a little bit more tax then to know that it is possible that an innocent man gets executed.
Even if the man is guilty, I wish death to no one.
It may not be fair but it is the right thing to do.
I do however understand your perspective.
We shouldn't be responsible for the bad decisions of other people.
Even if the man is guilty, I wish death to no one.
It may not be fair but it is the right thing to do.
I do however understand your perspective.
We shouldn't be responsible for the bad decisions of other people.
#125
-
avatarsarefornoobs (03/22/2013) [+]
(2 replies)
oh god. religion and politics was bad enough. im not even going to look at the comment section...
#174 to #169
-
avatarsarefornoobs (03/22/2013) [-] oh thats a great pic. im taking it
you filthy heretic
you filthy heretic
#122 to #1
-
irishpunker (03/22/2013) [-] I know I'm gonna get a lot of hate for this, but most British comedy (nowadays anyway) is shit.
If you live in the UK, watch one of those comedy shows like Comedy Roadshow or Live at the Apollo. Most of the British comedians are mediocre to shit.
Lee Evans, Russel Howard, Jack Whitehall, Sean Lock, James Corden, John Bishop, Michael McIntyre, Jason Manford, Jo Brand, etc. They're awful, but massive in Britain.
Watch 8 Out of 10 Cats and see how bad it can get.
The only current British comedians I like are Stewart Lee and Jimmy Carr.
Post your hate.
If you live in the UK, watch one of those comedy shows like Comedy Roadshow or Live at the Apollo. Most of the British comedians are mediocre to shit.
Lee Evans, Russel Howard, Jack Whitehall, Sean Lock, James Corden, John Bishop, Michael McIntyre, Jason Manford, Jo Brand, etc. They're awful, but massive in Britain.
Watch 8 Out of 10 Cats and see how bad it can get.
The only current British comedians I like are Stewart Lee and Jimmy Carr.
Post your hate.
#150 to #122
-
snowshark (03/22/2013) [-] Lee Evans I agree with but Russel Howard plays to the British youth audience, which is somewhat different to the fare across the pond. I dislike Jack Whitehall and Sean, Jo and Michael get a giggle occasionally. My parents love John though, because he aims for the elder crowd and Jason I'm ambivalent on.
8 out of 10 cats has never been for me, but allow me to completely destroy your argument. ^_^
1: Good Comedians.
Omid Djalili: www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVW36HoRp2Q
Dara O'Brian: www.youtube.com/watch?v=6se5b35YLQI
David Mitchell: www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ6_cRX1HLs
Phil Jupitus: www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VCnAgk2Grk
Frankie Boyle: www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8p0vOUamNI
2: Good programs.
Mock the Week: www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX7zpIz4sb0
Would I lie to you?: www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVMvhbX_ELY
The I.T. Crowd: www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3BY72RF8vc
That Mitchell and Webb Look: www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7aaw4g2tJo
8 out of 10 cats has never been for me, but allow me to completely destroy your argument. ^_^
1: Good Comedians.
Omid Djalili: www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVW36HoRp2Q
Dara O'Brian: www.youtube.com/watch?v=6se5b35YLQI
David Mitchell: www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ6_cRX1HLs
Phil Jupitus: www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VCnAgk2Grk
Frankie Boyle: www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8p0vOUamNI
2: Good programs.
Mock the Week: www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX7zpIz4sb0
Would I lie to you?: www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVMvhbX_ELY
The I.T. Crowd: www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3BY72RF8vc
That Mitchell and Webb Look: www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7aaw4g2tJo
#163 to #122
-
Killeratdawn (03/22/2013) [-]
I agree with some of what you said. although they are mediocre comedians they do make me laugh some of the time.
However. the best comedian we have to offer is easily Billy Connolly, for me no one can match him.
It's a shame he is getting on a bit now, but all his stand up shows were amazing and i never watched one without crying with laughter.
However. the best comedian we have to offer is easily Billy Connolly, for me no one can match him.
It's a shame he is getting on a bit now, but all his stand up shows were amazing and i never watched one without crying with laughter.
#28 to #12
-
cheeseybagle (03/21/2013) [-] www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVa_4UOvb-g this is the clip the gif is from
#128 to #92
-
snowshark (03/22/2013) [-] No. In the US, the most common form of comedy is sitcoms. In the UK, it's Panel-shows. That is from "Have I Got News For You" a show that has run well over 40 seasons of topical news-related comedy.
Qi another panel-show based around interesting and often misunderstood facts. However, HIGNFY has a different presenter most weeks whereas Qi has Steven... not all shows are as lucky.
Other examples are:
Argumental: www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xmwG24YoLc
Mock the Week: www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX7zpIz4sb0
And one you may well know: Who's line is it anyway. It was originally a british show that traveled over to America. Personally I prefer the American version because there's more random, improvised comedy to it.
Qi another panel-show based around interesting and often misunderstood facts. However, HIGNFY has a different presenter most weeks whereas Qi has Steven... not all shows are as lucky.
Other examples are:
Argumental: www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xmwG24YoLc
Mock the Week: www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX7zpIz4sb0
And one you may well know: Who's line is it anyway. It was originally a british show that traveled over to America. Personally I prefer the American version because there's more random, improvised comedy to it.
#325 to #12
-
yutdollacwwwthree (03/22/2013) [-] Brian Blessed, he was in Bladder, as was Stephen Fry and Rowan Atkinson. Great show stocked with great comedians. Hugh Laurie was in it too.
#236
-
bkceallaigh (03/22/2013) [+]
(12 replies)
You know. I've never tried having my tit's smashed in a door. But, something just TELLS me I don't want to try.
#270 to #269
-
bkceallaigh (03/22/2013) [-] Yeah, you're right! I heard dropping a sledge hammer on your balls hurts like all get out. You may even throw up. But who knows? You may be one of those people that have that sort of fetish. I really feel enlightened now!
Your logic is perfect!
XD (:
Your logic is perfect!
XD (:
#273 to #270
-
lordhowe **User deleted account** (03/22/2013) [-] We will never know.
You could be into S&M. That is what youre referring to. Dont be afraid to try things.
Why, if all people were afraid to try new things, society would stop advancing.
Now go smash your boobs in a door, while i drop heavy pieces of metal on my nads.
This is for the greater good after all.
You could be into S&M. That is what youre referring to. Dont be afraid to try things.
Why, if all people were afraid to try new things, society would stop advancing.
Now go smash your boobs in a door, while i drop heavy pieces of metal on my nads.
This is for the greater good after all.
#185
-
silverhellion (03/22/2013) [+]
(4 replies)
MFW my mother randomly tells me she almost got an abortion but then "god told her not to". to which i said "gee thanks mum",
mum: "are you being sarcastic?"
me: "i honestly have no fucking idea"
mum: "are you being sarcastic?"
me: "i honestly have no fucking idea"
#310
-
tehlulzbringer (03/22/2013) [+]
(12 replies)
I'm against abortion because it gives women a choice
#33
-
grandmabetty (03/21/2013) [+]
(1 reply)
when you 'ear the word "wales" you probably fink of da fish wiv da biggest dik in de ocean
#186
-
misterymisterman ONLINE (03/22/2013) [+]
(25 replies)
I'm in favour of abortion, because I think the potential life argument is bullshit. A fertilised egg is not something that is alive. Preventing it from becoming alive will not make it feel anything. It will not be upset, or angry, or confused, and nor will it worry that it will never experience these emotions, in the same way that the bacteria in a sneeze are not heartbroken that you didn't let them stay nice and cozily in your nose. The foetus will not feel pain if you abort it, because it has barely developed to the level of something we would call 'alive.' There is no reason to feel bad for this clump of cells, unless you're arguing from a religious point of view, arguing that it has a soul and whatnot. In this case, I cannot help you, and I leave you to your opinions, misguided as I might believe them to be.
Furthermore, I see absolutely no reason to prevent unwanted population growth which harms literally nothing in the process (unless you want to get picky about employees suffering in the abortion industry or whatever.) The world is already tremendously overpopulated, and people who are already alive and can experience are starving, diseased and unbelievably poor because there are simply not enough resources in the world for them to live at a level we would call 'comfortable.' See http://www.overpopulation.org/faq.html for more - bringing more life into a world of which we simply cannot continue to sustain for very long is foolish, especially when (if abortion is considered) the child may not even be born into a stable family, where it would at least not join the millions upon millions of deprived families. Much more likely is that the child would be born into a family whose parents either could not or would not sufficiently care for it. It would suffer as a child, from hunger or neglect or abuse or more, and would most likely grow up into a replica of its irresponsible parents, continuing the cycle of wasted life thoughtlessly piling up in the world.
Furthermore, I see absolutely no reason to prevent unwanted population growth which harms literally nothing in the process (unless you want to get picky about employees suffering in the abortion industry or whatever.) The world is already tremendously overpopulated, and people who are already alive and can experience are starving, diseased and unbelievably poor because there are simply not enough resources in the world for them to live at a level we would call 'comfortable.' See http://www.overpopulation.org/faq.html for more - bringing more life into a world of which we simply cannot continue to sustain for very long is foolish, especially when (if abortion is considered) the child may not even be born into a stable family, where it would at least not join the millions upon millions of deprived families. Much more likely is that the child would be born into a family whose parents either could not or would not sufficiently care for it. It would suffer as a child, from hunger or neglect or abuse or more, and would most likely grow up into a replica of its irresponsible parents, continuing the cycle of wasted life thoughtlessly piling up in the world.
#195 to #186
-
SILENCEnight (03/22/2013) [-] **SILENCEnight rolled a random image posted in comment #211 at We need help, funnyjunkers! ** tldr
#209 to #195
-
byposted (03/22/2013) [-] Good roll, for the Junior Anti-Sex League would pretty much be in line with modern feminists today, in a sense, for the book is science fiction.
Under the premise of men being broken out of their natural role with women, being a slave to their strong rhetoric of which is noted in the book as the strongest of all, it applies.
Under the premise of men being broken out of their natural role with women, being a slave to their strong rhetoric of which is noted in the book as the strongest of all, it applies.
#387 to #384
-
misterymisterman ONLINE (03/24/2013) [-] Okay, you've got me there. My point was we don't feel sympathy for cells, at all - I've never heard of anyone who wants to outlaw washing your hands because of the thousands of little microbes you're killing every time you do so.
#320 to #186
-
N. Korean citizen (03/22/2013) [-]
I'm sorry, im not religious but i disagree with you. I wont even go into the overpopulation argument since obviously abortions arent done to avoid overpopulation.
The clump of cells that youre talking about for me is a human being. It is not any clump of cells, it will develop into a human being, except if it dies or killed. You and I are both made of various cells but as a whole we are human beings. We are made of skin cells, brain cells, muscle cells, etc. which together form a human being. If a number of these cells are lost we are still considered human beings.
Regarding the fact that you say that they don't feel emotions and are not aware of their surroundings, you seem to imply (probably you didn't mean to but anyway) that human beings with severe mental incapacities can still be killed since they are not aware. So are you reducing being a human being to just feelings? I'm sorry but I cannot agree with you
The clump of cells that youre talking about for me is a human being. It is not any clump of cells, it will develop into a human being, except if it dies or killed. You and I are both made of various cells but as a whole we are human beings. We are made of skin cells, brain cells, muscle cells, etc. which together form a human being. If a number of these cells are lost we are still considered human beings.
Regarding the fact that you say that they don't feel emotions and are not aware of their surroundings, you seem to imply (probably you didn't mean to but anyway) that human beings with severe mental incapacities can still be killed since they are not aware. So are you reducing being a human being to just feelings? I'm sorry but I cannot agree with you
#204 to #186
-
neutralgray ONLINE (03/22/2013) [-] The potential life argument isn't bullshit. It's the idea that you know and enjoy life and can love and be happy yet you know something that can grow up to do all those things you love won't because you decide for it.
I don't go either way on this argument, though, so don't lose your head like I do. I stay strictly in the middle as a rule. When it comes down to it, though, you can't really give any "objective" reasons for why one side is more right or wrong than another. It's an argument of morals and values, not intellect and calculated probability.
I don't go either way on this argument, though, so don't lose your head like I do. I stay strictly in the middle as a rule. When it comes down to it, though, you can't really give any "objective" reasons for why one side is more right or wrong than another. It's an argument of morals and values, not intellect and calculated probability.
#211 to #204
-
misterymisterman ONLINE (03/22/2013) [-] The problem with that idea is that you're assuming the potential abortee will grow up to enjoy life and be happy. I'm not denying the possibility of that happening, but the equally - if not more - likely situation is that the foetus is up for abortion because the parents are not in a position to ensure it grows up to enjoy life and love, and often end up resenting the decision to keep it and neglect or abuse the child.
What's more, you say you're deciding 'for it' that it doesn't get a chance at life, when there is nothing to decide for. The foetus will not, and cannot, be upset or disappointed that it was aborted, because it doesn't have a mind. The only emotional repercussion the abortion will have is on the people making the decision, and possibly people close to them. If they guilt themselves into thinking an abortion would be heartless or something, they're almost being selfish, considering their own emotions over the practicalities of childbirth and raising their child.
You say it is a moral or emotional debate rather than an intellectual or statistical one; I disagree. All of my arguments are grounded in fact and evidence - it is almost more like emotions versus reason. And certainly in my opinion, I think reason should win out every time. Issues like this are too serious to be left to subjectivity; I feel this way about many such issues, where opinion bias gets in the way of objectively improving the world.
What's more, you say you're deciding 'for it' that it doesn't get a chance at life, when there is nothing to decide for. The foetus will not, and cannot, be upset or disappointed that it was aborted, because it doesn't have a mind. The only emotional repercussion the abortion will have is on the people making the decision, and possibly people close to them. If they guilt themselves into thinking an abortion would be heartless or something, they're almost being selfish, considering their own emotions over the practicalities of childbirth and raising their child.
You say it is a moral or emotional debate rather than an intellectual or statistical one; I disagree. All of my arguments are grounded in fact and evidence - it is almost more like emotions versus reason. And certainly in my opinion, I think reason should win out every time. Issues like this are too serious to be left to subjectivity; I feel this way about many such issues, where opinion bias gets in the way of objectively improving the world.
#329 to #211
-
neutralgray ONLINE (03/22/2013) [-] But, please note, I stay in the middle here. Both sides have their merits, pros, and cons. It just pisses me off when one is like "that side is bullshit. If you analyze it like this it totally makes sense on my side!" when you can bet your ass someone on the other side sees it through the same analysis-style you do but yet they rest on the other side. You have to remember, no matter how right you think you are, the other side ALWAYS exists for a reason--- a reason most often just as potentially right as yours but from a 180 turn around. There's a logic on the other side. There's a value on the other side. It's not all just feelings. Just as your side isn't entirely held up by reason by everyone who says "I'm pro-choice."
Don't dismiss one side because of your own. I'm not saying don't have a side but try to fully understand why another side exists. I bid you adieu. I'll go back to being in the middle.
Don't dismiss one side because of your own. I'm not saying don't have a side but try to fully understand why another side exists. I bid you adieu. I'll go back to being in the middle.
#326 to #211
-
neutralgray ONLINE (03/22/2013) [-] Once again, the point goes over you head. The idea isn't that the fetus can get upset. Any pro-lifer with a brain is aware that it can't think on its own mortality. The idea is that you know its potential to grow someday into appreciating life, a life you much appreciate yourself. That's the idea behind the argument.
Furthermore, I'm not denying the possibility that it can have a shitty life. Statistically speaking, though, most people alive would rather be alive-- regardless of the poor circumstances surrounding it. Also, a much heavier percentage of children who grow up in problematic/impoverished homes grow up to be completely fine: cognitively, biologically, and socially normal. And, note here, they generally enjoy the fact that they're alive to have developed. They may not have cared as a fetus but they care when developed. Likewise, in the sense that it is selfish to measure your own emotions rather than the practicality of raising a child who statistics will tell you will more than likely be completely normal, there's an irony in saying "I deny that potential creature life" when you yourself are alive to deny it.
Also, I said morals and values. Your reasons become your values but the result in anything you can point to is all probability and no definite circumstance. Impoverished areas have many children because they're not likely to survive. It's unfortunate, truly. But, one could also argue the problem isn't with overpopulation-- it's with the system providing those people. The world is a big place and it really could fit a lot more-- we just can't provide for them. But, in probably hypothetical situations, it is completely possible to provide for them, just as it probable in a hypothetical world of abortions without resistance to help keep the system going to provide for the current population.
It's all speculation, values, what you put more of your faith and your *own* reason to, and your moral standard. You can't make this an intellectual debate.
Furthermore, I'm not denying the possibility that it can have a shitty life. Statistically speaking, though, most people alive would rather be alive-- regardless of the poor circumstances surrounding it. Also, a much heavier percentage of children who grow up in problematic/impoverished homes grow up to be completely fine: cognitively, biologically, and socially normal. And, note here, they generally enjoy the fact that they're alive to have developed. They may not have cared as a fetus but they care when developed. Likewise, in the sense that it is selfish to measure your own emotions rather than the practicality of raising a child who statistics will tell you will more than likely be completely normal, there's an irony in saying "I deny that potential creature life" when you yourself are alive to deny it.
Also, I said morals and values. Your reasons become your values but the result in anything you can point to is all probability and no definite circumstance. Impoverished areas have many children because they're not likely to survive. It's unfortunate, truly. But, one could also argue the problem isn't with overpopulation-- it's with the system providing those people. The world is a big place and it really could fit a lot more-- we just can't provide for them. But, in probably hypothetical situations, it is completely possible to provide for them, just as it probable in a hypothetical world of abortions without resistance to help keep the system going to provide for the current population.
It's all speculation, values, what you put more of your faith and your *own* reason to, and your moral standard. You can't make this an intellectual debate.
#297 to #204
-
N. Korean citizen (03/22/2013) [-]
That's odd logic. I and you didn't plant a seed yesterday, even though it could grow up to be a giant tree. I and you didn't donate to African children everyday even though someone over there has the potential to grow up and be happy if I or you do. I and you don't give a shit about those things and their potential life.
Yet people somehow consider a fetus' potential life to be different. I don't care about that random seed that could be a tree. I don't give a shit about africans except for maybe the 1 second of the year I remember that hell hole exists. I don't really care about a potential life that can't think and doesn't really exist yet.
Yet people somehow consider a fetus' potential life to be different. I don't care about that random seed that could be a tree. I don't give a shit about africans except for maybe the 1 second of the year I remember that hell hole exists. I don't really care about a potential life that can't think and doesn't really exist yet.
#219 to #186
-
byposted (03/22/2013) [-] The world is already tremendously overpopulated, and people who are already alive and can experience are starving,
The person below you called you out on your view of the potential life argument, so I'll delve into the fallacy you promoted with your second paragraph. The world, in terms of demography, is much more than simply "overpopulated." You must look at regional population density to see how this applies to the issue of abortion.
Countries in Africa, like Nigeria, are very overpopulated and growing beyond stability, but countries like Germany and Japan are dying.
COUNTRIES LIKE GERMANY AND JAPAN ARE DYING; NOT ONE WESTERN COUNTRY HAS A STABLE BIRTHRATE ANYMORE!
You implied abortion is a good method of population control, so it should be promoted, but that's only so if western countries wish to kill off their citizenry and replace the lost masses with Africans and other third worlders. I mean, this is, for purposes intentional or not, already happening with mass-immigration, but that's another issue.
Much more likely is that the child would be born into a family whose parents either could not or would not sufficiently care for it. It would suffer as a child, from hunger or neglect or abuse or more, and would most likely grow up into a replica of its irresponsible parents, continuing the cycle of wasted life thoughtlessly piling up in the world.
You just described Africa's reproduction plight. If you want to stop global overpopulation, subsidize an abortion industry in Africa instead of providing for their food. Either way, many niggers will die as western food shipments cannot last forever and make for a stable continent where agriculture production is abyssal for such fertile land.
The person below you called you out on your view of the potential life argument, so I'll delve into the fallacy you promoted with your second paragraph. The world, in terms of demography, is much more than simply "overpopulated." You must look at regional population density to see how this applies to the issue of abortion.
Countries in Africa, like Nigeria, are very overpopulated and growing beyond stability, but countries like Germany and Japan are dying.
COUNTRIES LIKE GERMANY AND JAPAN ARE DYING; NOT ONE WESTERN COUNTRY HAS A STABLE BIRTHRATE ANYMORE!
You implied abortion is a good method of population control, so it should be promoted, but that's only so if western countries wish to kill off their citizenry and replace the lost masses with Africans and other third worlders. I mean, this is, for purposes intentional or not, already happening with mass-immigration, but that's another issue.
Much more likely is that the child would be born into a family whose parents either could not or would not sufficiently care for it. It would suffer as a child, from hunger or neglect or abuse or more, and would most likely grow up into a replica of its irresponsible parents, continuing the cycle of wasted life thoughtlessly piling up in the world.
You just described Africa's reproduction plight. If you want to stop global overpopulation, subsidize an abortion industry in Africa instead of providing for their food. Either way, many niggers will die as western food shipments cannot last forever and make for a stable continent where agriculture production is abyssal for such fertile land.
#225 to #219
-
misterymisterman ONLINE (03/22/2013) [-] The birth rates in those countries are slightly smaller than their death rates, true, but THESE COUNTRIES ARE DYING is, to say the least, a bit of an exaggeration. And NOT ONE WESTERN COUNTRY HAS A STABLE BIRTHRATE ANYMORE is technically true, but this isn't necessarily a problem - a consistent birth rate is realistically impossible to achieve. The global birth rate is falling, which in my book is a good thing, but there are exceptions: the UK's birth rate in 2011 was its highest for 40 years, for example. Trends cannot accurately be used to predict outcomes.
I did imply that, but taking it from that to killing off our citizenry is a big leap forward - I never said anything about implementing it as a mandatory procedure to bring population down, my argument is intended as a defence of the pro-choice argument.
The problem with subsidising such an industry is that many countries, such as Nigeria, though abortion under some circumstances is technically legal in many cases it is still considered a criminal act. I would be in favour of abortion being legalised and implemented around the world, but before that can be tackled abortion laws have to be changed.
I did imply that, but taking it from that to killing off our citizenry is a big leap forward - I never said anything about implementing it as a mandatory procedure to bring population down, my argument is intended as a defence of the pro-choice argument.
The problem with subsidising such an industry is that many countries, such as Nigeria, though abortion under some circumstances is technically legal in many cases it is still considered a criminal act. I would be in favour of abortion being legalised and implemented around the world, but before that can be tackled abortion laws have to be changed.
#238 to #225
-
byposted (03/22/2013) [-] the UK's birth rate in 2011 was its highest for 40 years, for example. Trends cannot accurately be used to predict outcomes.
Third world immigrants.
I did imply that, but taking it from that to killing off our citizenry is a big leap forward - I never said anything about implementing it as a mandatory procedure to bring population down, my argument is intended as a defence of the pro-choice argument.
I never implied that you implied that.
but THESE COUNTRIES ARE DYING is, to say the least, a bit of an exaggeration. And NOT ONE WESTERN COUNTRY HAS A STABLE BIRTHRATE ANYMORE is technically true, but this isn't necessarily a problem
Interesting. Japan's crumbling economy, for decades now, and dying population, is not a problem? The country is literally dying and will be such a fraction of its current population and productivity if it doesn't do anything.
a consistent birth rate is realistically impossible to achieve.
False. It depends on the circumstances. If a consistent birth rate is impossible to achieve, than society would have never evolved from tribal groups.
Third world immigrants.
I did imply that, but taking it from that to killing off our citizenry is a big leap forward - I never said anything about implementing it as a mandatory procedure to bring population down, my argument is intended as a defence of the pro-choice argument.
I never implied that you implied that.
but THESE COUNTRIES ARE DYING is, to say the least, a bit of an exaggeration. And NOT ONE WESTERN COUNTRY HAS A STABLE BIRTHRATE ANYMORE is technically true, but this isn't necessarily a problem
Interesting. Japan's crumbling economy, for decades now, and dying population, is not a problem? The country is literally dying and will be such a fraction of its current population and productivity if it doesn't do anything.
a consistent birth rate is realistically impossible to achieve.
False. It depends on the circumstances. If a consistent birth rate is impossible to achieve, than society would have never evolved from tribal groups.
#243 to #238
-
DivderOfZero (03/22/2013) [-] By consistent birthrate he means the same birthrate for an extended period of time. Not it hopping from a negative one to a positive one. He means. for example, one year it could have one of about 10/1000 people then the next 12/1000. That would not be consistent.
#247 to #238
-
misterymisterman ONLINE (03/22/2013) [-] You say that, but net migration has been roughly consistent or falling since the mid-2000s. Why in 2011 did so many immigrants decide all at once to have mass unprotected sex?
If you didn't, I apologise. Unless you're implying that abortion being available in western countries is equivalent to killing off their citizenry to replace with foreigners. Again, if not, I apologise.
Japan's economic crisis has more to do with a real estate crash, more in line with the USA's Wall Street crash in the 1920's, than population - a disproportionate number of people had moved into cities from the countryside, a change for which the country's economy in the long run was not prepared for. I concede that the skewed population demographics are cause for concern, but I maintain that COUNTRIES ARE DYING is hyperbole, and that abortion is not a major part of this problem. Access to contraception is definitely a part of it, but in Japan the fact is fewer couples are committing to traditional marriages with children. I agree that abortion does facilitate this somewhat, but with that logic you'd have to outlaw all forms of contraception to ensure population growth; a move which I believe would be verging on inhumane.
That is categorically untrue. If you mean a consistent state of population growth (where the birth rate exceeds the death rate) that is far more feasible, but consistent birth rates - especially in growing civilisations - do not exist. The closest you will find are in fact in developed countries, like Japan, where the birth rate still changes year on year but the change is much less pronounced.
If you didn't, I apologise. Unless you're implying that abortion being available in western countries is equivalent to killing off their citizenry to replace with foreigners. Again, if not, I apologise.
Japan's economic crisis has more to do with a real estate crash, more in line with the USA's Wall Street crash in the 1920's, than population - a disproportionate number of people had moved into cities from the countryside, a change for which the country's economy in the long run was not prepared for. I concede that the skewed population demographics are cause for concern, but I maintain that COUNTRIES ARE DYING is hyperbole, and that abortion is not a major part of this problem. Access to contraception is definitely a part of it, but in Japan the fact is fewer couples are committing to traditional marriages with children. I agree that abortion does facilitate this somewhat, but with that logic you'd have to outlaw all forms of contraception to ensure population growth; a move which I believe would be verging on inhumane.
That is categorically untrue. If you mean a consistent state of population growth (where the birth rate exceeds the death rate) that is far more feasible, but consistent birth rates - especially in growing civilisations - do not exist. The closest you will find are in fact in developed countries, like Japan, where the birth rate still changes year on year but the change is much less pronounced.
#223 to #219
-
sparkieemae (03/22/2013) [-] To your text, TL:DR.
To your picture, let me educate you, you stupid shit; a fetus is in the body of the MOTHER not the FATHER, she deserves the right to evict and unwanted tenant from her own body. The father, I guess in his own opinion, unfortunately, has no say because there isn't anything inside of him. After birth the baby is no longer dependent on the body of the mother for survival and is obviously no longer at risk of being evicted from another body, as it already has been.
To your picture, let me educate you, you stupid shit; a fetus is in the body of the MOTHER not the FATHER, she deserves the right to evict and unwanted tenant from her own body. The father, I guess in his own opinion, unfortunately, has no say because there isn't anything inside of him. After birth the baby is no longer dependent on the body of the mother for survival and is obviously no longer at risk of being evicted from another body, as it already has been.
#234 to #223
-
byposted (03/22/2013) [-] ** To your text, TL:DR.**
Irrefutable argument, so you skip it. Wonderful. Like a skilled bureaucrat.
A fetus is in the body of the MOTHER not the FATHER, she deserves the right to evict and unwanted tenant from her own body.
The picture was meant to show how men are slaves to women, as such. What you described is the decision behind Roe V Wade. The picture was not meant to argue against the Supreme Court's decision to abortion, but to put a light on the man's strife with modern marriage (hello faggot).
The father, I guess in his own opinion, unfortunately, has no say because there isn't anything inside of him.
The father, unfortunately, cannot exercise the same radical rights given to women in marriage. If a woman is only slightly discontented with a marriage, she, by default, can dump him with no logical reason. Sure, a motive can be spelled out to make the case stronger, but the irreconcilable differences statute works with the same efficiency. 9/10 times, the woman is given the children and the man is forced to subsidize their lives.
As I said in an early post, if the man is no longer supported by marriage due to the woman's differences, despite her swearing to uphold the marriage until death during the Church ceremony, why is the father forced, by the government, to sell away his choice? He chooses to have a job and make money for himself, and the government forces that private property away.
Irrefutable argument, so you skip it. Wonderful. Like a skilled bureaucrat.
A fetus is in the body of the MOTHER not the FATHER, she deserves the right to evict and unwanted tenant from her own body.
The picture was meant to show how men are slaves to women, as such. What you described is the decision behind Roe V Wade. The picture was not meant to argue against the Supreme Court's decision to abortion, but to put a light on the man's strife with modern marriage (hello faggot).
The father, I guess in his own opinion, unfortunately, has no say because there isn't anything inside of him.
The father, unfortunately, cannot exercise the same radical rights given to women in marriage. If a woman is only slightly discontented with a marriage, she, by default, can dump him with no logical reason. Sure, a motive can be spelled out to make the case stronger, but the irreconcilable differences statute works with the same efficiency. 9/10 times, the woman is given the children and the man is forced to subsidize their lives.
As I said in an early post, if the man is no longer supported by marriage due to the woman's differences, despite her swearing to uphold the marriage until death during the Church ceremony, why is the father forced, by the government, to sell away his choice? He chooses to have a job and make money for himself, and the government forces that private property away.
#281
-
diespitris ONLINE (03/22/2013) [-]
*sees comments*
I'll just move on now. No need for me to linger.
*sees comments*
I'll just move on now. No need for me to linger.
