hypocrisy. .. omg this issue rustles my jimmies so much... also: " gay people can't adopt children, kids are better in an orphanage than with a homo family." wtf wo stop the lies
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (299)
[ 299 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #1 - gdikodiak
Reply +159 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
omg this issue rustles my jimmies so much...
also:
" gay people can't adopt children, kids are better in an orphanage than with a homo family."
wtf world, srly?

User avatar #13 to #1 - habasparkz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
I agree. As a matter of fact I had a friend that was raised by 2 mothers. He's in Harvard now.
#61 to #13 - anon id: 79bc97a7
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
that's because he got to watch his lesbian mothers give hot sticky action to each other every night.

inb4 incest....it's not incest when he was never a biological child
User avatar #116 to #61 - habasparkz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
Actually he was one of the mothers Biological son. She gave birth to him.
User avatar #36 to #1 - childofnephilim
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
Is that a figurative quote, or a literal quote. If literal, I would like to know who said it so I could more effectively be ashamed of them.
#165 to #1 - economic
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #215 to #165 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
I'd like a study that shows how poorly children raised in the foster care system perform compared to gay families. I'd still take gay parents over no parents any day.
#219 to #215 - economic
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #292 to #219 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
I also saw the point that it's a skewed study by a biased group made specifically to try to sway the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage, that many of the households under the gay or lesbian sections were actually single parent households headed by a homosexual parent, that it includes even a single same sex encounter as a gay or lesbian parent, and that even if you weren't raised by your gay/lesbian parent you were still included in the gay/lesbian household category. These are all huge flaws in the legitimacy of this study, and brings into serious doubt its credibility.

Not only this, but this only shows correlation, not causation, meaning that the poor situation in gay and lesbian homes isn't necessarily because they are gay but instead could be because of the widespread discrimination, both social and legal, that is leveled against them nationwide. If that was the explanation then this does more for supporting the normalization of gay families than it does for opposing them.

www.austinchronicle.com/news/2013-03-29/new-documents-contradict-regnerus-claims-on-gay-parenting-study/

www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2012/06/a-faulty-gay-parenting-study.html

User avatar #265 to #165 - newsmyrna
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
Well what do ya know a study done by an anti-gay rights conservative think tank called the Witherspoon Institute some how found that gay marriage is harmful to children. do some research before you but up stupid **** like that it took me 5 ******* minutes to find out how full of **** it was.
#241 to #165 - cjasper
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
#255 to #165 - anon id: 6d12011d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
Damn lesbians, put it together.

The difference is not THAT much in any case.
User avatar #184 to #165 - Pompano
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
I'm not disputing this graphic, but I'd just like to know where it came from.
#187 to #184 - economic
+2 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #2 to #1 - nynewars
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
I'm going to thumb up all of your comments because you helped that guy with the fallout tech problem.

User avatar #3 to #2 - gdikodiak
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
well thanks, i appriciate it.
tho is not really necessary, i'm not that addicted to thumbs.
User avatar #4 to #3 - nynewars
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
Well, you need thumbs to give thumbs, so it's kinda like a pay it forward thing.

Unfortunately that is a double edge sword, since people can red thumb too, but I like it how it is.
User avatar #5 to #4 - gdikodiak
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
yeah well, this community usually well balance the thumbs so it kinda works.
well, ill be back on my stuff. have a nice day.


User avatar #20 to #3 - ironsoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
♫You like to think that you're immune to the stuff...oh yeah
It's closer to the truth to say you can't get enough
You know you're gonna have to face it
You're addicted to thumbs! ♪
#140 to #2 - ffinfinity
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
sorry I was anon, what fallout tech problem?
#139 to #2 - anon id: daa4a1f3
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
what fallout tech problem?
#7 - teranin
Reply +123 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
Politicians are hypocrites
Politicians are hypocrites
User avatar #183 to #7 - arukimasu
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
Why no can expand?
User avatar #188 to #183 - evilpapagali
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
It's a gif.
User avatar #8 - nyuORlucy
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
im a little comfused someone explain?
#22 to #8 - anon id: 62fe4a89
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
Some people will do everything to protect the unborn, pro-life and all that. But they are against most things that aim to help people that are born. And not uncommonly also pro-death penalty.

Go figure.
User avatar #246 to #8 - lesrin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
as im sure youve seen the responses, many people also believe that if your raped you should keep the baby becuase its sacred, justin beiber was a rape baby, so make sure you burn rape babies at the stake
User avatar #154 to #8 - fyaq
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
libtard circlejerks again, ignore it and move on to next post.
User avatar #10 to #8 - fjusernumberone
Reply +63 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
In politics there are a lot of people that will go to great lengths to keep abortion from happening, saying that life is precious and sacred and yatta yatta yatta. Yet those same people are the ones that are against helping the less fortunate.
User avatar #190 to #10 - twofreegerbils
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
Go ask the less fortunate if they wish they were aborted, see what they say
User avatar #185 to #10 - douthit
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
Nobody's against helping the less fortunate. What I'm against is people using the gun of government to extort people's money via taxes to give to others. It's still theft, regardless of the destination of the stolen goods.
#279 to #185 - anon id: 1936333a
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
Are people really so retarded they don't know the basics of how taxes work?
User avatar #295 to #279 - douthit
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
That's an ad hominem attack and logical fallacy.You tried to argue your point by attacking me.

I know what taxes are and how they're collected. That's not the point. The point is that what's done is immoral. What the government does would be called extortion, coercion, or theft if done by an individual. Wrong things don't become right just because a group does them.
#103 to #10 - ratiller
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
"against helping the less fortunate" or an alternative way of saying that "against socialism and destroying the middle class and any pretense of being a meritocracy" of course it's all perspective, one side has logic the other side has feels
User avatar #174 to #103 - sprok **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
You're right. It is all perspective.

And from my perspective you're all wrong and ******* retarded.
#180 to #174 - ratiller
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
beautiful argument, i loved all of the feels involved, really helped me identify the liberal child in you
#276 to #10 - anon id: 68901cf7
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
That has to be the most disgusting oversimplification you could have possibly given.
#224 to #10 - utarefson
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#157 to #10 - invalidstatementwo **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
Way to put all of them under a broad umbrella. I'm pro life but that also means allowing everyone to have a life worth living and comfortable. If you need help you deserve help and should get it by all means.
#69 to #10 - anon id: 6275f123
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
Few people are against helping the less fortunate. Most just don't think they should be forced to.
User avatar #11 to #10 - nyuORlucy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
got it thank you stranger
User avatar #17 to #11 - fjusernumberone
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
You are most welcome!
#12 to #10 - SimianLich
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
Not against helping them, just against giving handouts. Teach a man to fish and all.
User avatar #29 to #12 - Zarke
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
Alright, then, show us to the pond. You know, the one your sponsors drag their gill-nets through and **** in with reckless abandon.
#300 to #29 - SimianLich
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
What the **** are you talking about?
User avatar #16 to #12 - fjusernumberone
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
There is some truth in this. But at the same time they would probably be against giving me money so I can go to school. I'm currently only going to college right now because of financial aid which they would most likely refuse me, telling me that I need to get a job and pay for it....or to get a student loan (which I don't want to do. I don't feel like having to pay it off for the next 20 years of my life)
#18 to #16 - SimianLich
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
You can get financial aid but only up to a certain amount, but you need to work your way through college if you wanted or needed more. I went through trade school like this.

The politics involved in this is that if you want it bad enough we'll help you but you've got to put forth the effort.
User avatar #19 to #18 - fjusernumberone
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
True dat good sir! I've seen too many people on welfare that just don't try to help out their situation because if they did then they wouldn't get their free money. It's disgusting. And yea, I know about financial aid. I'm using it. It's enough to let me be a full time student and to get a decent check from the left over money.
User avatar #21 to #16 - faithrider
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
finaancial aid is ********, what it really means is a loan.
#31 - improbable
Reply +48 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
User avatar #117 to #31 - SCREWTHERULES
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
except that logic actually makes sense
#81 to #31 - xxxgnipsxxx
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
Unfortunately as I am pro life I hate to say but this comic you posted actually makes moral and ethical sense to me, at least compared to the original, which btw I hate conservatives so I lol'd. But anyways it makes sense to care for those who are actually living instead the other way around, which is pretty evil come to think of it. Just another example of how politicians are only corporate bitches and have no interest in their real constituents, us.
User avatar #216 to #31 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
Close, but the "don't you want to abort it?" makes it seem like pro-choice people are pro-abortion. They just support letting the mother decide.
User avatar #280 to #31 - voltkills
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
except pro-choice people dont try to enforce abortions on people, they just want to give them the choice.
#42 to #31 - thegoodleftundone
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
You're implying that pro-choice people want abortions to happen. They don't want to kill babies, they just want people to have a choice. That's terrible logic.
User avatar #155 to #42 - tomahawkit **User deleted account**
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
so? its a political cartoon. I don't see you bitching about the content implying that the right siders actually call babies moochers.
User avatar #34 to #31 - childofnephilim
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
That sounds... Huh. Better, IMO.

Implying that the lady should abort the child for whatever reason (pro-abortionists? Anti-lifers?). But, having failed to do so, they rally behind her decision, and are supportive.
User avatar #41 to #34 - Greevon
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
It's "Pro-Choice"
Both sides are deceitful with their name. "Pro-lifers" don't necessarily care about the child's life or it's basic welfare, they just don't want women to be able to have a legal abortion. "Pro-choicers" are trying to get rid of the negative connotation of "abortion" by saying that it's not that they want people to have abortions, but women should have the right to choose to have one.
User avatar #48 to #41 - childofnephilim
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
Please understand I was musing over the notion that there might be a group of individuals who legitimately and literally supported women having abortions as opposed to any alternative. That is to say that abortion was the default action to take in the case of pregnancy.

Looking at the first frame of the comic to which I was replying, you will see what I was referencing. Didn't mean to ruffle any feather. Merely commenting on a juxtaposition.
User avatar #51 to #48 - Greevon
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
Oooh, yeah, well I thought you just didn't know what the term was.

The comic on the other hand, I understand to be the exact opposite of what the content was talking about.
User avatar #52 to #51 - childofnephilim
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
I think we have found a place of agreement. Marvelous. Do have a good day!
#68 - xdeathspawnx
Reply +38 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
User avatar #90 to #68 - snakefire
Reply +18 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
I don't see a problem with this...

It isn't exactly conscious as a fetus, but once it is born, it should be taken care of.
User avatar #94 to #90 - princessren
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
I am....sort of in the middle in this
the idea that people can just....take away a child's life before it even has the chance to live...just kinda disturbs me
User avatar #191 to #94 - unfortunately
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
You say "a chance" as if the fetus has a choice on whether it gets aborted or not. I'm sure there aren't very many fetuses thinking "Man, I'm sure wish I lived".
User avatar #192 to #191 - princessren
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
I know
but...it could be given the chance by the people who get to decide....is all I am trying to say...
User avatar #194 to #192 - unfortunately
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
No I get what you're saying, but if the fetus is aborted, its not going to experience any kind of pain or regret or whatever. Besides, there is no logical reason to force the child to be born if its life is expected to be ******.
User avatar #199 to #192 - unfortunately
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
and is there a particular reason your comments are stuffed with "....."s?
User avatar #200 to #199 - princessren
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
no, sorry
it's just a bad habit
#201 to #200 - unfortunately
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
it's all good
#95 to #94 - snakefire
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
That child would be born unto parents who don't give a ****.

No kids with financially unprepared mothers, mentally unprepared mothers, PHYSICALLY unprepared mothers that could die during birthgiving.

There are many legitimate reasons why abortion is not only better off for the mother, but the child too.
User avatar #158 to #95 - tomahawkit **User deleted account**
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
i was born into particularly ****** circumstances, having a robbed childhood and whatnot; but i would still prefer to be alive. or at least given the choice to be alive or not.

i can also understand you opinion because the fetus is not yet conscience of thought for the first weeks of being a fetus


i like this opinion stuffs
User avatar #252 to #158 - xdeathspawnx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
totally agree. I think that if you asked most kids that were put up for adoption or had terrible childhoods if they would have rather have been aborted and never lived at all, they would say no. I think that people should at least have the chance to try and make a better life for themselves, and many people with terrible childhoods still grow up to have happy adult lives.
#97 to #95 - princessren
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
I don't know....I mean...there is always adoption I know, I know "hur dur children never get adopted" but still
I mean...even if it has a miserable up bringing...like...they can grow up and possibly make it better....it is just kind of unsettling that they aren't even giving the child a fighting chance
like....my mother had four children all at once, the Doctor suggested getting rid of one of the kids (me) would of made the pregnancy easier, and they would of probably been alittle better of economically too.
I just...I can;t wrap my mind around not existing right now or ever
#99 to #97 - snakefire
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
This is a ****** situation, absolutely. But its not like people are being forced to have abortions.
Its a matter of choice.

If someone never had an existing consciousness they wouldn't have to wrap their mind around any sort of thought.

There are plenty of things that never get to exist. Nobody notices nor does it make a difference to anyone because it never existed.

But if its any consolation, I'm very glad you do exist. Because you're a very good friend.
#136 to #99 - hybridxproject
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
"There are plenty of things that never get to exist. Nobody notices nor does it make a difference to anyone because it never existed. "
User avatar #101 to #99 - princessren
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
thanks...I guess
I mean...I don't know...I mean...I guess it's like, sperm...people don't generally have sex all the time, so ALOT never turns into anything, then when people do have sex, only one can really make it, even so atleast those sperm had a chance
it just bothers me that....because of two people...this sperm has made it and formed with the egg or whatever, and it could turn into a baby....and it too just.....ends up not existing
User avatar #111 to #97 - hoponthefeelstrain
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
you wouldn't need to wrap your mind around it, you would never have existed so how could you have had your feelings hurt?

Don't say "just adopt" especially if you don't plan on it. A lot of people can't AFFORD to adopt, then some people want to adopt overseas. The adoption system is already crowded, don't shove more people into it.
#112 to #111 - princessren
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
well maybe someone should of kept it in their pants
User avatar #123 to #112 - thebestpieever
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
Just to play devil's advocate: People should do a lot of things. They don't, though, and we are trying to hurt as few people as possible. From an emotional standpoint it is awful but then again, you don't remember the womb or childbirth. Early memories come a few months after that and even then those usually fade away with age. The most early memories that one tends to keep are at about 3 or 4 years old. And you are likely saving the child a lot of pain.

Between the binary choice of legal or not legal i would most likely back your viewpoint but, given my own choice, I think that this is an issue that should be treated on a case by case basis.
#218 to #123 - anon id: 4a1f337d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
Think about how presumptuous it is to tell someone that their life would be more meaningful if they'd never existed based on the circumstances surrounding their birth.

"Oh your mother and father don't want you and is [addicted/busy] [to/with] [drugs/school/work]
don't worry we'll kill you so you don't have to live with the abandonment.
now your mom can wait two years and have a real baby, ya know, one they planned"

C'mon sun. I mean, Is it considered a mercy killing if you decide to shoot up a bunch of orphans because their poor? What kind of poor moral reasoning is that.
User avatar #275 to #218 - thebestpieever
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
Did you even other to read my comment or did you just pick at random?
#236 to #218 - anon id: 54e01d56
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
The two scenarios aren't comparable because orphans are conscious humans. A fetus, especially in the early stages, isn't conscious at all and has zero understanding of whats happening. And I'll be willing to say that I don't believe they'll realize that they are being killed in the first place.
User avatar #115 to #112 - hoponthefeelstrain
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
because telling people to not do something always works.... or in your mothers case where she was pregnant with more kids than I'm sure she expected. I don't support aborting a baby simply because of it's gender though. I also don't think a baby should be used as a punishment... "You laid down and had sex so now we're forcing you to keep this baby and you're gunna like it!"
User avatar #196 to #90 - Bad Man
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
But it's still a tragedy when it's a stillborn. Explanation?
User avatar #197 to #196 - snakefire
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
The parents wanted the kid.

Simple.
User avatar #198 to #197 - Bad Man
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
Except that it's not that simple.

It's still perceived as a death, and conscious or not, a life is a life. You might as well say that you can kill a baby since it doesn't comprehend its existence at first.
#118 to #90 - babarock
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
A very complex issue. Consider the question - how late in the pregnancy should an abortion be legal? At what point does this consciousness become protectable? Only after birth? So it would be OK to abort at 8 months 3 weeks as long as the fetus is still in the womb?
User avatar #119 to #118 - snakefire
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
This really goes beyond my training as a pseudo-philosophical teenager.
User avatar #124 to #119 - philliyoMLB
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
Then.... shut up?
User avatar #127 to #124 - snakefire
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
I said what I felt comfortable saying. I have an opinion on the subject, not the details of the subject.
User avatar #128 to #127 - philliyoMLB
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
I know I don't care, I just found it funny the way you did it. Sorry for sounding mean
#130 to #128 - snakefire
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
Its okay. Better I delve deeper and make a fool of myself right?
User avatar #131 to #130 - snakefire
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
better than if*
User avatar #143 to #90 - SteyrAUG
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
So then since animals don't have the level of consciousness capable of perceiving their own mortality, they can be killed at will as well with no left wing groups like PETA complaining in the slightest, right?
User avatar #144 to #143 - snakefire
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
I don't think you understand what consciousness means.
User avatar #146 to #144 - SteyrAUG
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
I don't think you understand that fetuses feel pain when you abort them.
User avatar #148 to #146 - snakefire
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
Pain =/= consciousness

Even bacteria responds to external stimuli.
User avatar #149 to #148 - SteyrAUG
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
So animals are conscious then? All they respond to is instinct and pain.
#151 to #149 - snakefire
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
Of course they are.

Animals have personality, feelings, experiences, things they're close to.
A fetus doesn't. its a husk. it doesn't think at all. It feels pain, that is a simple reaction.
User avatar #153 to #151 - SteyrAUG
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
Bison Attack - Another One Bites the Dust

So at what point does a fetus stop being a fetus? Does it develop a personality, feelings, and experiences by leaving the vagina? Does it's brain all of a sudden kick on the second it leaves? Do the motor functions that make a baby kick in the womb exist outside the brain, regardless of what science tell us?

Animals don't think either. They don't care about each other to the level that we do. They only care that THEY get away from danger.

User avatar #156 to #153 - snakefire
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
Read over this. I think it will help you.
www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-does-consciousness-arise

And to put humans apart from animals is downright retarded. If course they think and care of eachother. some animals care more about eachother than humans do.
Its downright arrogant to think humans are above animals. Humans ARE animals. Its a fact.
User avatar #164 to #156 - SteyrAUG
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
So, according to the article, consciousness is achieved the point the baby "wakes up" and your argument now (correct me if I'm wrong) is that it's okay to abort them because they are sedated when they are in the womb (or were you getting at the "they're not conscious" part).

They recognize their mother's voice at less than two days old.
www.webmd.com/baby/news/20130102/babies-learn-womb
abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97635
User avatar #134 to #90 - bomberbib
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
I must say that no, you''re wrong. Here's definition of "conscious" when searched in google. "aware of and responding to one's surroundings." Any mother can tell you that babies might kick depending on if they feel that their mothers voice is aggravated, or they might act more peacefully if she is singing soothingly etc. It doesn't make any sense that a baby comes out of the womb and all of a sudden its brain turns on, as if it was just a mass of flesh before that, and now it has a personality. The most common form of abortion is D&C. That means dilate and cut. The cervix ( inner opening of womb) is dilated (widened) to allow instruments to pass through. These instruments? Knives and other brutal appendages. The baby is cut limb from limb into small chunks, and sucked out through a pipe. The skull is crushed before being sucked up. There is an ultrasound video of this ( the old kind that is white/black, just shows general shape.) Its called the "silent scream" because you can see the baby tilt its head back and squirm and try to get away from the knife. That is definitely consciousness. Is it not? Fun fact: Abortions are one of the only (If not the only surgeries you cannot film in the U.S. If they were, you would see footage of the Silent Scream, but in the vivid detail of modern ultrasounds, with 3D imaging of the child's face/body, with lots of detail. I highly doubt that people would agree with abortions if they saw the product of their argument in real time in front of them. In conclusion, saying that a baby doesn't feel anything is lie. Plain and simple. When you get technical and call it something like a "grouping of cells" or "zygote", while you are technically correct, you are beating around the moral bush and using those things is most often a way to not feel guilty about the killing of these kids. Bring on the red thumbs if you want. One persons mind changed might save a life, and that's worth a million red thumbs. I argue this because, morally, I must.
User avatar #141 to #134 - meteorprince
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
The fact that something can feel pain doesn't mean that it has the ability to be called a person. Yes, it's alive but when it pops out it does not automatically have a personality and sense of self-awareness. Any human with a functioning sense of empathy would hesitate to put any creature through an extensive amount of pain, whether it be a dog or a fetus. That doesn't make it okay to say "well, then under no circumstances should it be killed".
Did you know that infants, until they reach about 7 months, can't even recognize primary and secondary care-givers? Until that time period, infants don't even have a connection with their mother or father on the most basal of levels. Until around 3 years of age, a child can't even understand that different people have separate consciousnesses and don't automatically know something that someone else does if they leave the room and aren't there to observe an event happening.
In order to answer this question of if it's "moral" to kill a fetus or not, you have to clearly define personhood. That's hard. But I don't think you can take a mindless fetus and say that it is a person. They have no understanding of anything around them.
Does a pregnant woman have the right to drive in the carpool lane?
#299 to #141 - bomberbib
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
But unless the fetus undergoes a miscarriage or dies before whatever point you decide they are a person, they are 100% going to become a person. There is 0% chance of that fetus becoming anything else. That's why I think that legally, it is important to define a "person", but seeing as a fetus can be nothing other than a human, I think that argument is irrelevant when it comes to abortion. Like i mentioned in my previous post, I find that to be beating around the bush to avoid guilt tbh. Lets ignore the fetus completely for a moment. People always think of the question "What is the purpose of my life?" It is perhaps one of the most daunting questions of all time. Evolutionarily speaking, I think its safe to say that the most basic and fundamental purpose of life is procreation, after all, some animals die in the process of creating offspring, and willingly. That's why, when a mother kills her child, I think it is quite fair to say that one violates their own humanity, and that of the child. Surely you would agree that although a fetus is not a "person", it is a human? That opens up my other argument of human rights, but thats pretty self explanatory. How dare you supposedly protect the rights of a woman, when in doing so you throw away someones right to life? Therefore the process of abortion is degrading and abominable. mfw abortion
User avatar #302 to #299 - meteorprince
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
I don't agree with that logic. Adolescent criminals aren't tried as adults because they "will be" adults. It's not largely accepted for children to have sexual relations with adults because they "will be" adults.
Fetuses, like I said, don't even have a sense of self-awareness. They can only process the most basic of cognitive functions, and have less emotional and psychological development than many animals. They do not suffer a loss when they're killed.
I could even dare to say that even infants up until a certain age can't be considered people yet because of these sorts of reasons, and wouldn't undergo any kind of pain beyond the basic instinct to live if they were to die.
User avatar #135 to #134 - limb
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
that was a lot of text
User avatar #137 to #135 - bomberbib
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
Indeed sir, i was a few digits of character cap. As I said in second last and last sentence of thta post, I have to.
User avatar #138 to #137 - limb
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
I was just mentioned by you and have nothing to do with this thread, why don't you people ever talk about trees?
User avatar #28 - allamericandude
Reply +23 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
I get the point of this comic, but it's pretty superficial and generally ignorant.

I think the abortion debate should be taken a lot more seriously than it is. By that I mean it shouldn't be treated as superficially and emotionally as it currently is. Right now the abortion debate is drawn down party lines, and it's been reduced to dead-end victimizing and ad-hominem rhetoric. Comics like this perpetuate that trend.

I think the reason this issue has become so heated is that both sides see themselves as the "libertarian" side. One side is defending the rights of the mother, the other is defending the rights of the child. And, technically, they're both correct even if you ignore the religious arguments .

But the abortion issue brings up a lot of important philosophical questions that should be treated with a lot more respect than they are: What constitutes life? What constitutes a human being? Where does one person's rights end and another person's rights begin? These aren't questions that you can just vote on.
User avatar #30 to #28 - toastedspikes
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
Precisely because those aren't questions that can be or should be voted on, is why I and anyone else who is sane, is pro-choice. I don't want anyone to get an abortion in most cases. That doesn't mean I should force my personal morals on someone else. That's the whole point of being pro-choice.
#32 to #30 - flyslasher
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
I think you missed the point of his argument.
User avatar #33 to #32 - toastedspikes
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
I... Yes. Yes I did.
User avatar #35 to #33 - childofnephilim
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
Very humble of you. Kudos.
User avatar #120 to #28 - bomberbib
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
Thank you. Very well stated.
User avatar #294 to #28 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
My big reason for being pro-choice is that all of the anti-abortion arguments that I've heard have been based in religion, and religion has zero place in American legislation since that directly violates the First Amendment. You can oppose abortion on personal grounds because of your religious beliefs, but trying to force that on other people is unconstitutional, so it should be up to each individual to decide whether they want to choose abortion or not. Until someone can draft a coherent argument against abortion that has no basis in religion this fact won't change.
User avatar #37 to #28 - Shiny
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
While this is true, the comic does make a good point; the party line that claims to care for the rights of the child has other policies that seem to contend the very opposite.
User avatar #56 to #37 - xdeathspawnx
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
Not saying I agree with these people, but not supporting redistribution of wealth or the safety net is very different than not supporting basic rights. These people think that everyone should have access to a certain baseline of rights, like the ability to live. therefore taking the potential of life from someone is wrong. They however, do not support public aid or welfare because they believe that those are not basic rights.
User avatar #59 to #56 - Shiny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
I never said their individual beliefs were inherently wrong.
User avatar #38 to #37 - allamericandude
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
That's a criticism of those people. It has nothing to do with the actual issue of abortion.
User avatar #40 to #38 - Shiny
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
Obviously, but making fun of hypocrites is the kind of thing make worthing a comic about.
User avatar #43 to #40 - Shiny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
Make worthing?? What the ****, brain.
User avatar #44 to #40 - allamericandude
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
It's rare to see a political comic that doesn't have it's own agenda it's trying to support. It's pretty obvious which side of the aisle this comic maker is on.
User avatar #45 to #44 - Shiny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
How do you know? He could be a GOP supporter that's simply fed up with idiots at his local party meeting.
User avatar #49 to #45 - allamericandude
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
In this political climate, where party lines are more entrenched than the Korean DMZ, I doubt it.
User avatar #62 to #28 - xdeathspawnx
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
I am very confused by the liberal stance on abortion. I would think that a group of people that think the death penalty is morally wrong would take the same stance when it comes to abortion. I don't understand how you would want to protect the life of a criminal who has done horrible things, but would then be so willing to allow someone to take the life of an innocent unborn child.
User avatar #293 to #62 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
This comes down to: 1) when you think a fetus becomes a baby, 2) whether you think humans are inherently good, neutral, or bad, and 3) whether you actually oppose the death penalty or not.

As for me, I go by the science definition that a fetus is a fetus until it's capable of existing unaided outside of the womb (around 7.5 months), I think that humans are inherently neutral, so children aren't innocent in so much that they know nothing and have done nothing, so losing them is neither a gain nor a loss, and I don't oppose the death penalty, so even if you disagree with me there is no contradiction.
#242 to #62 - thereforeiamnot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
I think it might have to do with the fact that the criminal has already lived for a while and has a presence in the universe. Their interactions with people and the world around them left marks that prove their existence. This way, they have made many connections to the universe that could possibly be severed. There is probably at least one person that would remember them and be affected by their passing.

Even if said criminal had absolutely no one that cared or knew about them, taking away their life seems tragic because it is putting an end to a story. This person has been traveling down their own path for years, and they have started many things. They are a human that has done things, and that is relatable.

An unborn child, on the other hand, has not yet made an impact on the world. They have no story, no experiences that they've lived through. They are still somewhat of a blank slate. No memories, no thoughts, no personal impact on the world other than being a thing growing inside of an established human being. It is much easier to think of an unborn child as inhuman because they haven't actually done anything or even developed a consciousness yet. They have barely entered the world yet, so aborting them feels less like cutting a story short, and more like not even writing anything down in the first place.

It isn't really about how innocent the person is. It's about how connected they are to the universe.

If this post is really confusing it's probably because I'm terrible at organizing my thoughts and writing coherently enough to get my ideas across clearly. English was always my worst subject.
#65 - mexicandudeinsd
Reply +17 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
i dont support abortion unless the mothers health is in danger or they fetus is barely forming
User avatar #71 to #65 - girloninternet
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
just asking: what about rape?
User avatar #75 to #71 - vilememory
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
How about incest rape? Yay I'm being forced to raise my father's child! And he has visitation rights even though he raped me!
User avatar #78 to #75 - girloninternet
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
good point
User avatar #79 to #75 - mexicandudeinsd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
lucky......
User avatar #72 to #71 - mexicandudeinsd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
forgot about that one
it was gods intent for it to happen so let it be
hahaha jk well its a hard one but imma say that she could get an abortion but make it so that the fetus isnt developed,
User avatar #77 to #72 - girloninternet
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
totally get what you mean. i believe that its all her choice. accidents happen and if you catch it early enough then fine.
User avatar #76 to #65 - jajathezombie
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
That's actually a very common pro-choice view. Most people who are pro-choice don't support abortions beyond the first trimester, or at the very least nothing beyond second trimester. In my mind, if you haven't decided whether or not you want the baby by the time it's practically viable, you're stupid, indecisive, and at this point you can deal with childbirth and decide whether or not to put the kid up for adoption.
User avatar #74 to #65 - darknesincontrol
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
Another reason I can think of is if we find out the fetus will have a disease that makes life unbearable, such as the one that makes skin as fragile as a wet piece paper.
User avatar #106 to #65 - lamarsmithgot
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
cause there's no such thing as overpopulation or the abuse of an unwanted child
#107 to #106 - mexicandudeinsd
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
for overpopulation theres war, and abuses theres child service i think
User avatar #108 to #107 - lamarsmithgot
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
we probably squirt out millions more kids than war casualties annually. I mean, look at africa. It's ravaged by endless warfare and yet it's the world's leader for overpopulation and food shortage.

and it's not unlike child services can magically undo psychological damage
#220 to #108 - anon id: 4a1f337d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
Therefor we should kill babies
#234 to #220 - lamarsmithgot
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
This image has expired
No, therefore we should ******* abort the unwanted ones before they BECOME babies.
User avatar #145 to #108 - mexicandudeinsd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
then there isnt enoguh war....
User avatar #147 to #145 - mexicandudeinsd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
enough
User avatar #109 to #108 - lamarsmithgot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
**** i didn't mean to say "unlike".
User avatar #211 to #106 - danniegurl
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
Just because a child is originally unwanted doesn't mean the child will be abused.
Many women end up wanting their children, even if they were unplanned.
And if those mothers still don't want their child once he/she is born, then they can give their baby up for adoption.
User avatar #114 to #65 - dafiltafish
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
That is a pretty popular view.
User avatar #110 to #65 - vissova
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
My sister had to have her child aborted when she was 15.
Had her child been born, she would have to raise a child not even knowing
how to be a parent to begin with, and nobody would be able to pay money
to help raise the baby, and my sister even still is very irresponsible. Her child
would've been miserable. Probably would've had a mental issue too, since
my sister was doing drugs at the time.
In a situation like that, abortion can be the best decision.
User avatar #210 to #110 - danniegurl
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
No, she wouldn't have had to do that.
There is such a thing as adoption.
#228 to #210 - Dwarf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
**Dwarf rolled a random image posted in comment #6243318 at Safe For Work Random Board ** The thought of adoption may not be that good after all. Some people find it haunting to not know their true parents. Please refer to this picture if you have any questions.
User avatar #232 to #228 - danniegurl
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
I'd rather be a bit haunted than dead.
My mind wont change on this. I know it's not a perfect system, but it's better to be alive.
My mom was about 5 minutes away from death. Her life may not have been the best, but she's glad she at least got the chance.
It gave me the chance too, which I'm glad for.
User avatar #233 to #232 - Dwarf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
You wouldn't know you had a chance though. You wouldn't know anything. If you can tell me one thought or feeling you had before you were born, I will change my views on the matter.
User avatar #235 to #233 - danniegurl
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't change the fact that I'm glad now.
How many other babies would be glad to have gotten the chance?
I bet all of them.
You may not, but I believe in an afterlife, so I think they do know the difference.
User avatar #237 to #235 - Dwarf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
I believe in an afterlife, too. I think that's irrelevant, though. In an afterlife, I don't believe you would be focused on the fact that you had a chance on Earth.
User avatar #239 to #237 - danniegurl
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
Well, again. Maybe, maybe not.
I think many of them could have been people who could have made a difference, but we'll never know because they were killed.
#98 - anon id: 56968589
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
this picture is a logical fallacy. just saying
#256 to #98 - jaked
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
It's a fallacy sure, but not on the front of logic. I literally just finished a unit on every type of logical fallacy in math. If you'd like to disagree with me go ahead and tell me what kind of fallacy it is i.e. converse, inverse, etc.
#104 to #98 - juffs
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
Aren't all political cartoons?
#195 - latinotornado
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
This totally isn't biased at all..
User avatar #6 - urbancohort
Reply -8 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
Sorry to say this guys but... I see so many problems with discrimination and racism and it comes specially from USA. Hell, you guys give too many stereotypes to people. There's none of this in my country. Those things just... Doesn't exist. There is no "******* like watermelons and chicken nuggets" and when we call them *******(in our language of course) They don't give a single ****. Yes, black people here are not racist as well. I know this has nothing to do with pregnant women(well maybe discrimination counts) but i just wanted to say that. You people are assholes.
User avatar #9 to #6 - bigfootluke
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
as an dude in the us i can say as soon as i can possibly afford so, im switching countries. love to move to england but ill settle for canada if need be. i just want to get the **** out. you sir are 100% accurate. america sucks. its like the fat kid at school who thinks hes amazing at everything but everyone just ends up hating or feeling sorry for him
#14 to #6 - tehjman
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#23 to #6 - anon id: 2cde229a
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
Because your country has its orignial people.
When everyone came to america, everyone hated all the other people that came to america. Thus, sterotypes.
Also where the **** is there no stereotypes?
#15 to #6 - tehjman
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
Uhm I don't know what country/province/nation/landmass you live in, but you better not say "Euproe".

www.funnyjunk.com/Fuckin+Gypsy/funny-pictures/4850174/

Yeah America is SOOO Horrible when it comes to racism. *eyeroll* This this makes U.S racial problems look like a ******* Utopia.

There Was this post a week or two ago about Gypsies and all I have to say is DAMN... Like from what I saw Europeans DESPISE those people. And that's not even mentioning when they're railing on "Kebabs" or Turks or whatever, but that gets just as nasty.

Yeah you'll here about "Lel black people" etc, but We got over this level of widespread hatred in like the 70's. Are you even trying?
User avatar #39 to #15 - urbancohort
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(11/01/2013) [-]
Hell no I'm not european and thank god for that. I'm actually Brazilian and we are just like you guys, people that came from all over the place hating each other, In the south we have slavs and italians, In the north we have black people and hispanics, in the middle we have all kinds of race. I love USA because they are true heroes in history, without missing that they gave the whole world capitalism. But I'm talking about the people that live there. If there's something wrong if them It's their behavior. But whatever, every country has its ups and downs.