Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

55 Million Babies Killed Since Roe v. Wade; 1/3 of a Generation.

death2ducksdeath2ducks Member Posts: 991
edited January 2014 in Tug Tavern
6 Million Jews? Try 55 Million American Babies. Who knows, one of them might have discovered a cure for cancer. 40 years ago today, Roe v. Wade was decided. It needs to be a day of reflection.

lifenews.com/2013/01/22/i-am-overwhelmed-by-55-million-babies-killed-since-roe-v-wade/

image

«134

Comments

  • A shame your mother didn't exercise her right to privacy.
  • death2ducksdeath2ducks Member Posts: 991

    A shame your mother didn't exercise her right to privacy.

    I wouldn't even say something that disgusting about you.

  • A shame your mother didn't exercise her right to privacy.

    I wouldn't even say something that disgusting about you.

    This is an anonymous football forum. Don't be a pussy.
  • allpurpleallgoldallpurpleallgold Member Posts: 8,771
    I've paid for a few.
  • death2ducksdeath2ducks Member Posts: 991

    A shame your mother didn't exercise her right to privacy.

    I wouldn't even say something that disgusting about you.

    This is an anonymous football forum. Don't be a pussy.
    I don't think 55 Million dead American babies is funny. Almost 10 times the number of Jews that Hitler murdered.

  • uw2010uw2010 Member Posts: 940

    I've paid for a few.

    No rusty coathanger?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited January 2014

    A shame your mother didn't exercise her right to privacy.

    I wouldn't even say something that disgusting about you.

    This is an anonymous football forum. Don't be a pussy.
    I don't think 55 Million dead American babies is funny. Almost 10 times the number of Jews that Hitler murdered.

    Those babies had to suffer and be tortured in concentration camps for years before being put into an oven.

    d2dFS
  • can you imagine if all 55 mill had been born?

    I think this country has enough fucking problems already, dont you?
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,789

    can you imagine if all 55 mill had been born?

    I think this country has enough fucking problems already, dont you?

    +1

    Why stop at birth? We should be able to kill babies in their first year. Think of all the problems we could solve.

  • dnc said:


    can you imagine if all 55 mill had been born?

    I think this country has enough fucking problems already, dont you?

    +1

    Why stop at birth? We should be able to kill babies in their first year. Think of all the problems we could solve.

    Serious question: When does life begin?

  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,789
    edited January 2014

    dnc said:


    can you imagine if all 55 mill had been born?

    I think this country has enough fucking problems already, dont you?

    +1

    Why stop at birth? We should be able to kill babies in their first year. Think of all the problems we could solve.

    Serious question: When does life begin?

    Now you're talking.

    This is the essence of the abortion debate. If you are confident it begins at birth, support abortion. If you think it begins at conception, oppose abortion. If you're not sure either way, you should probably oppose it.

    Suggesting we're better off with 55M aborted babies/fetuses distracts from the real question. If abortion isn't murder, then certainly I agree we might be better off. If it is murder, the end does not justify the means, or else it would justify infanticide as well.

    My wife is currently five weeks pregnant. We're gladly exercising our right not to have an abortion.















    Edit: Just realized death2ducks started us down that rabbit trail in the OP with the cure for cancer comment. I thought you initiated that discussion, which is why I replied to you as I did. My bad. I try not to read most of what d2d poasts.
  • oregonblitzkriegoregonblitzkrieg Member Posts: 15,288
    Some rabbit holes I just don't step into. Nothing good comes of it.
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,789

    Some rabbit holes I just don't step into. Nothing good comes of it.

    I think you just described the General Bored

  • allpurpleallgoldallpurpleallgold Member Posts: 8,771
    dnc said:

    dnc said:


    can you imagine if all 55 mill had been born?

    I think this country has enough fucking problems already, dont you?

    +1

    Why stop at birth? We should be able to kill babies in their first year. Think of all the problems we could solve.

    Serious question: When does life begin?

    Now you're talking.

    This is the essence of the abortion debate. If you are confident it begins at birth, support abortion. If you think it begins at conception, oppose abortion. If you're not sure either way, you should probably oppose it.

    Suggesting we're better off with 55M aborted babies/fetuses distracts from the real question. If abortion isn't murder, then certainly I agree we might be better off. If it is murder, the end does not justify the means, or else it would justify infanticide as well.

    My wife is currently five weeks pregnant. We're gladly exercising our right not to have an abortion.















    Edit: Just realized death2ducks started us down that rabbit trail in the OP with the cure for cancer comment. I thought you initiated that discussion, which is why I replied to you as I did. My bad. I try not to read most of what d2d poasts.
    Congratulations.

    If it's a girl, ultrasound or GTFO.
  • oregonblitzkriegoregonblitzkrieg Member Posts: 15,288
    edited January 2014
    dnc said:

    dnc said:


    can you imagine if all 55 mill had been born?

    I think this country has enough fucking problems already, dont you?

    +1

    Why stop at birth? We should be able to kill babies in their first year. Think of all the problems we could solve.

    Serious question: When does life begin?

    Now you're talking.

    This is the essence of the abortion debate. If you're not sure either way, you should probably oppose it.
    Though I try to stay out of this debate, I will throw this bone out there. There were a group of students at a university, the "pro lifers" that were displaying posters of what a partial birth abortion looks like. They've got a right to do that, free speech. Then another group of students, the "pro choicers" covered up their posters with blankets to hide the graphic photos. These are the same pro choicers that demand their 'freedom' but don't care about trampling on the freedom of others.

    Now if you make the 'choice' to have an abortion, I think you need to be made fully aware of what that 'choice' entails. You need to see all the graphic details before you do it, since you've decided to make the 'choice' to stray into a very gray area that 50% or more of the population believes to be murder. You need to see photos like the ones those students were displaying. You need to see a film detailing an abortion procedure. In addition to this there should be an on-screen display of the procedure as you're having it so that later on if your conscience starts troubling you, you won't be able to make the excuse that you really didn't understand what it all meant. If after that you continue anyway, you should get a compulsory spaying along with your abortion. That way you can have sex all you want without any consequences in the future. The trade-off is that you will not have a second chance to play God.

    This will force many people to really start thinking about what the value of a human life is. It would cut down on abortions, it would cut down on sex without contraception, and it would completely eliminate 2nd, 3rd and 4th abortions by hoes that just can't stop doing what they're doing. It may even cut down on the general birth-rate as smart women who want to have kids one day but don't want them at the moment, will reconsider having unprotected sex for the thrill of the moment.

    Instances of rape, medical threats to the mother and of course the Obama fuckface wanting the rest of us to pay for your choice, muddies this divisive issue even further.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited January 2014
    dnc said:

    dnc said:


    can you imagine if all 55 mill had been born?

    I think this country has enough fucking problems already, dont you?

    +1

    Why stop at birth? We should be able to kill babies in their first year. Think of all the problems we could solve.

    Serious question: When does life begin?

    Now you're talking.

    This is the essence of the abortion debate. If you are confident it begins at birth, support abortion. If you think it begins at conception, oppose abortion. If you're not sure either way, you should probably oppose it.

    Suggesting we're better off with 55M aborted babies/fetuses distracts from the real question. If abortion isn't murder, then certainly I agree we might be better off. If it is murder, the end does not justify the means, or else it would justify infanticide as well.

    My wife is currently five weeks pregnant. We're gladly exercising our right not to have an abortion.















    Edit: Just realized death2ducks started us down that rabbit trail in the OP with the cure for cancer comment. I thought you initiated that discussion, which is why I replied to you as I did. My bad. I try not to read most of what d2d poasts.
    Or the essence of the debate could be whether a woman has the right to privacy under the 14th amendment.

    Roe v Wade is a moderate compromise and it's hard to argue that viability isn't the best metric to balance the two interests (woman and state).

    Congrats btw.
  • dnc said:

    dnc said:


    can you imagine if all 55 mill had been born?

    I think this country has enough fucking problems already, dont you?

    +1

    Why stop at birth? We should be able to kill babies in their first year. Think of all the problems we could solve.

    Serious question: When does life begin?

    Now you're talking.

    This is the essence of the abortion debate. If you're not sure either way, you should probably oppose it.
    Though I try to stay out of this debate, I will throw this bone out there. There were a group of students at a university, the "pro lifers" that were displaying posters of what a partial birth abortion looks like. They've got a right to do that, free speech. Then another group of students, the "pro choicers" covered up their posters with blankets to hide the graphic photos. These are the same pro choicers that demand their 'freedom' but don't care about trampling on the freedom of others.

    Now if you make the 'choice' to have an abortion, I think you need to be made fully aware of what that 'choice' entails. You need to see all the graphic details before you do it, since you've decided to make the 'choice' to stray into a very gray area that 50% or more of the population believes to be murder. You need to see photos like the ones those students were displaying. You need to see a film detailing an abortion procedure. In addition to this there should be an on-screen display of the procedure as you're having it so that later on if your conscience starts troubling you, you won't be able to make the excuse that you really didn't understand what it all meant. If after that you continue anyway, you should get a compulsory spaying along with your abortion. That way you can have sex all you want without any consequences in the future. The trade-off is that you will not have a second chance to play God.

    This will force many people to really start thinking about what the value of a human life is. It would cut down on abortions, it would cut down on sex without contraception, and it would completely eliminate 2nd, 3rd and 4th abortions by hoes that just can't stop doing what they're doing. It may even cut down on the general birth-rate as smart women who want to have kids one day but don't want them at the moment, will reconsider having unprotected sex for the thrill of the moment.

    Instances of rape, medical threats to the mother and of course the Obama fuckface wanting the rest of us to pay for your choice, muddies this divisive issue even further.
    Some states already have this in the form of 24 hour laws that make certain the female wants to have the abortion.

    It shouldn't be a shaming event, however.

    Your last two paragraphs make you sound like a douche who wants to control female behavior. People have sex. Deal with it.
  • oregonblitzkriegoregonblitzkrieg Member Posts: 15,288

    dnc said:

    dnc said:


    can you imagine if all 55 mill had been born?

    I think this country has enough fucking problems already, dont you?

    +1

    Why stop at birth? We should be able to kill babies in their first year. Think of all the problems we could solve.

    Serious question: When does life begin?

    Now you're talking.

    This is the essence of the abortion debate. If you're not sure either way, you should probably oppose it.
    Though I try to stay out of this debate, I will throw this bone out there. There were a group of students at a university, the "pro lifers" that were displaying posters of what a partial birth abortion looks like. They've got a right to do that, free speech. Then another group of students, the "pro choicers" covered up their posters with blankets to hide the graphic photos. These are the same pro choicers that demand their 'freedom' but don't care about trampling on the freedom of others.

    Now if you make the 'choice' to have an abortion, I think you need to be made fully aware of what that 'choice' entails. You need to see all the graphic details before you do it, since you've decided to make the 'choice' to stray into a very gray area that 50% or more of the population believes to be murder. You need to see photos like the ones those students were displaying. You need to see a film detailing an abortion procedure. In addition to this there should be an on-screen display of the procedure as you're having it so that later on if your conscience starts troubling you, you won't be able to make the excuse that you really didn't understand what it all meant. If after that you continue anyway, you should get a compulsory spaying along with your abortion. That way you can have sex all you want without any consequences in the future. The trade-off is that you will not have a second chance to play God.

    This will force many people to really start thinking about what the value of a human life is. It would cut down on abortions, it would cut down on sex without contraception, and it would completely eliminate 2nd, 3rd and 4th abortions by hoes that just can't stop doing what they're doing. It may even cut down on the general birth-rate as smart women who want to have kids one day but don't want them at the moment, will reconsider having unprotected sex for the thrill of the moment.

    Instances of rape, medical threats to the mother and of course the Obama fuckface wanting the rest of us to pay for your choice, muddies this divisive issue even further.
    Some states already have this in the form of 24 hour laws that make certain the female wants to have the abortion.

    It shouldn't be a shaming event, however.

    Your last two paragraphs make you sound like a douche who wants to control female behavior. People have sex. Deal with it.
    It's not a shaming event, but an informational one. Some people won't ever feel shame. Some will. If the person's conscience shames them somewhere down the line, the conscience will have all the information it needs to work with. Having witnessed the actual abortion, the conscience cannot use the excuse that it wasn't fully informed about the decision, the consequences and the result.

    Creating or extinguishing life is not exactly a behavior. Nothing here is being controlled except to limit the number of abortions someone can have. There's no limits being set on sex or how often you want to do it. If it makes people change their behavior then that's merely a side effect. No one is forced to change anything here.
  • death2ducksdeath2ducks Member Posts: 991
    edited January 2014

    dnc said:

    dnc said:


    can you imagine if all 55 mill had been born?

    I think this country has enough fucking problems already, dont you?

    +1

    Why stop at birth? We should be able to kill babies in their first year. Think of all the problems we could solve.



    Serious question: When does life begin?

    Now you're talking.

    This is the essence of the abortion debate. If you're not sure either way, you should probably oppose it.
    Though I try to stay out of this debate, I will throw this bone out there. There were a group of students at a university, the "pro lifers" that were displaying posters of what a partial birth abortion looks like. They've got a right to do that, free speech. Then another group of students, the "pro choicers" covered up their posters with blankets to hide the graphic photos. These are the same pro choicers that demand their 'freedom' but don't care about trampling on the freedom of others.

    Now if you make the 'choice' to have an abortion, I think you need to be made fully aware of what that 'choice' entails. You need to see all the graphic details before you do it, since you've decided to make the 'choice' to stray into a very gray area that 50% or more of the population believes to be murder. You need to see photos like the ones those students were displaying. You need to see a film detailing an abortion procedure. In addition to this there should be an on-screen display of the procedure as you're having it so that later on if your conscience starts troubling you, you won't be able to make the excuse that you really didn't understand what it all meant. If after that you continue anyway, you should get a compulsory spaying along with your abortion. That way you can have sex all you want without any consequences in the future. The trade-off is that you will not have a second chance to play God.

    This will force many people to really start thinking about what the value of a human life is. It would cut down on abortions, it would cut down on sex without contraception, and it would completely eliminate 2nd, 3rd and 4th abortions by hoes that just can't stop doing what they're doing. It may even cut down on the general birth-rate as smart women who want to have kids one day but don't want them at the moment, will reconsider having unprotected sex for the thrill of the moment.

    Instances of rape, medical threats to the mother and of course the Obama fuckface wanting the rest of us to pay for your choice, muddies this divisive issue even further.
    Over the past 40 years, there have been 150 million births in the US and 55 million abortions. Roe v. Wade was 1974, 10 years after the introduction of the pill. For 40 years, 1 abortion for every 3 births. That's birth control by abortion. That's NOT what we were sold 40 years ago.

    Over those 40 years, government didn't pay for those abortions, Planned Parenthood did the biggest number with your tax dollars, however.

    The question I have is, what will happen to that ratio now that Obamacare pays for abortion with tax subsidies or pays for the entire thing via Medicaid? Answer, more abortions.

    These aren't "accidents". Women don't have to get pregnant. We solved that problem 50 years ago. Now we even have "Plan B". This is murder, and Obama just raised the Murder Rate.

    What does the percentage need to rise to? If 50% of pregnancy ends in abortion, will that persuade you that it's murder? With no direct government subsidy for abortion, it's been 25% for the past 40 years. It's now going higher.

    Statistics is my "wheelhouse".

Sign In or Register to comment.