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

DeepPurple

allpurpleallgold said:

DeepPurple said:

I wonder what the crime rate would be in the US if it had 55 Million more unwanted and neglected children forced through society...

I think DNC covered this pretty well on page 1.

Sorry, I'm using a mobile device... must have missed it.

creepycoug

DeepPurple said:

allpurpleallgold said:

DeepPurple said:

I wonder what the crime rate would be in the US if it had 55 Million more unwanted and neglected children forced through society...

I think DNC covered this pretty well on page 1.

Sorry, I'm using a mobile device... must have missed it.

Now that's what I call comedic timing.

I literally laughed out loud here in my pretend lawyer office.

creepycoug

sarktastic said:

Travis Morris said:

dnc said:

Travis Morris 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?

When you get your drivers license

when you get your first blow job

and after you've had your last, life is effectively over.

death2ducks

RaceBannon said:

Can't we get back to talking about climate change?

Let me put it terms that this Bored can understand... In the 55 Million babies killed, were there any 5 Star Commits to the UW?

Mods? Can this go onto the Football Bored now?

[Deleted User]

I notice that you spill your semen on the ground, especially after visiting this bored on Fridays. Don't lie - I'm watching.

Shit - I should get a job with the NSA. I wonder how many Talents they'd pay for my intel?

Mad_Son

It doesn't matter when life begins. It matters when humanity begins. I think the vast majority of people have no problem with killing things in general (like fish and carrots) but take offense to killing humans. I have done a fair amount of research to address this since I prefer to make informed decisions. In terms of typical abortion vernacular, the lumps of cells that have potential to eventually turn into a human actually begin to have a consciousness early in the third trimester. As such, as far as I am concerned, a fetus is a human starting in trimester number three. This is based on scientific studies, not some emotional feeling about what I think looks like a baby. If a woman wants an abortion in the first two trimesters she should be able to do whatever she wants with her own body. Once there is an actual cluster of cells that can reasonably classified as a human and not simply overgrown sperm that is when the right to an abortion should no longer be as casual as a whim, if someone so wants. From third trimester and on, a woman should only be able to have an abortion if the pregnancy is threatening her life OR if the fetus is not viable. There is no reason for a woman with family and friends to die so that a motherless infant with no connections to the world can come to be. To say that someone who has a place in this world and is loved has a lower priority than an unborn, unconnected, probably unloved except by the mother is ludicrous. Likewise, if a medical professional establishes that a fetus can not survive, it is stupid to subject a woman to the pain and prolonged heartache of a failed pregnancy.

TL;DR version:
Abortions for all in the first two trimesters.
Abortions only if the mother's life is threatened or the fetus is unviable in the third trimester.

[Deleted User]

Mad_Son said:

It doesn't matter when life begins. It matters when humanity begins. I think the vast majority of people have no problem with killing things in general (like fish and carrots) but take offense to killing humans. I have done a fair amount of research to address this since I prefer to make informed decisions. In terms of typical abortion vernacular, the lumps of cells that have potential to eventually turn into a human actually begin to have a consciousness early in the third trimester. As such, as far as I am concerned, a fetus is a human starting in trimester number three. This is based on scientific studies, not some emotional feeling about what I think looks like a baby. If a woman wants an abortion in the first two trimesters she should be able to do whatever she wants with her own body. Once there is an actual cluster of cells that can reasonably classified as a human and not simply overgrown sperm that is when the right to an abortion should no longer be as casual as a whim, if someone so wants. From third trimester and on, a woman should only be able to have an abortion if the pregnancy is threatening her life OR if the fetus is not viable. There is no reason for a woman with family and friends to die so that a motherless infant with no connections to the world can come to be. To say that someone who has a place in this world and is loved has a lower priority than an unborn, unconnected, probably unloved except by the mother is ludicrous. Likewise, if a medical professional establishes that a fetus can not survive, it is stupid to subject a woman to the pain and prolonged heartache of a failed pregnancy.

TL;DR version:
Abortions for all in the first two trimesters.
Abortions only if the mother's life is threatened or the fetus is unviable in the third trimester.

TL;DR the supreme court majority opinion in Roe v Wade.

oregonblitzkrieg

Mad_Son said:

It doesn't matter when life begins. It matters when humanity begins. I think the vast majority of people have no problem with killing things in general (like fish and carrots) but take offense to killing humans. I have done a fair amount of research to address this since I prefer to make informed decisions. In terms of typical abortion vernacular, the lumps of cells that have potential to eventually turn into a human actually begin to have a consciousness early in the third trimester. As such, as far as I am concerned, a fetus is a human starting in trimester number three. This is based on scientific studies, not some emotional feeling about what I think looks like a baby. If a woman wants an abortion in the first two trimesters she should be able to do whatever she wants with her own body. Once there is an actual cluster of cells that can reasonably classified as a human and not simply overgrown sperm that is when the right to an abortion should no longer be as casual as a whim, if someone so wants. From third trimester and on, a woman should only be able to have an abortion if the pregnancy is threatening her life OR if the fetus is not viable. There is no reason for a woman with family and friends to die so that a motherless infant with no connections to the world can come to be. To say that someone who has a place in this world and is loved has a lower priority than an unborn, unconnected, probably unloved except by the mother is ludicrous. Likewise, if a medical professional establishes that a fetus can not survive, it is stupid to subject a woman to the pain and prolonged heartache of a failed pregnancy.

TL;DR version:
Abortions for all in the first two trimesters.
Abortions only if the mother's life is threatened or the fetus is unviable in the third trimester.

Well thought out argument.

CollegeDoog said:

Mad_Son said:

TL;DR the supreme court majority opinion in Roe v Wade.

SCOTUS (Scrotum is a more apt term) needs to be obliterated. Of all the 3 branches of government, SCROTUM is the one that is most out of control and needs some mother fucking checks and balances shoved down their throats. 9 people shouldn't be deciding the moral pathway of an entire nation.

[Deleted User]

oregonblitzkrieg said:

Mad_Son said:

It doesn't matter when life begins. It matters when humanity begins. I think the vast majority of people have no problem with killing things in general (like fish and carrots) but take offense to killing humans. I have done a fair amount of research to address this since I prefer to make informed decisions. In terms of typical abortion vernacular, the lumps of cells that have potential to eventually turn into a human actually begin to have a consciousness early in the third trimester. As such, as far as I am concerned, a fetus is a human starting in trimester number three. This is based on scientific studies, not some emotional feeling about what I think looks like a baby. If a woman wants an abortion in the first two trimesters she should be able to do whatever she wants with her own body. Once there is an actual cluster of cells that can reasonably classified as a human and not simply overgrown sperm that is when the right to an abortion should no longer be as casual as a whim, if someone so wants. From third trimester and on, a woman should only be able to have an abortion if the pregnancy is threatening her life OR if the fetus is not viable. There is no reason for a woman with family and friends to die so that a motherless infant with no connections to the world can come to be. To say that someone who has a place in this world and is loved has a lower priority than an unborn, unconnected, probably unloved except by the mother is ludicrous. Likewise, if a medical professional establishes that a fetus can not survive, it is stupid to subject a woman to the pain and prolonged heartache of a failed pregnancy.

TL;DR version:
Abortions for all in the first two trimesters.
Abortions only if the mother's life is threatened or the fetus is unviable in the third trimester.

Well thought out argument.

CollegeDoog said:

Mad_Son said:

TL;DR the supreme court majority opinion in Roe v Wade.

SCOTUS (Scrotum is a more apt term) needs to be obliterated. Of all the 3 branches of government, SCROTUM is the one that is most out of control and needs some mother fucking checks and balances shoved down their throats. 9 people shouldn't be deciding the moral pathway of an entire nation.

Hi there. I see you're unfamiliar with the petty, venal, shitstains that make up the United States congress.

doogsinparadise

CollegeDoog said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

Mad_Son said:

It doesn't matter when life begins. It matters when humanity begins. I think the vast majority of people have no problem with killing things in general (like fish and carrots) but take offense to killing humans. I have done a fair amount of research to address this since I prefer to make informed decisions. In terms of typical abortion vernacular, the lumps of cells that have potential to eventually turn into a human actually begin to have a consciousness early in the third trimester. As such, as far as I am concerned, a fetus is a human starting in trimester number three. This is based on scientific studies, not some emotional feeling about what I think looks like a baby. If a woman wants an abortion in the first two trimesters she should be able to do whatever she wants with her own body. Once there is an actual cluster of cells that can reasonably classified as a human and not simply overgrown sperm that is when the right to an abortion should no longer be as casual as a whim, if someone so wants. From third trimester and on, a woman should only be able to have an abortion if the pregnancy is threatening her life OR if the fetus is not viable. There is no reason for a woman with family and friends to die so that a motherless infant with no connections to the world can come to be. To say that someone who has a place in this world and is loved has a lower priority than an unborn, unconnected, probably unloved except by the mother is ludicrous. Likewise, if a medical professional establishes that a fetus can not survive, it is stupid to subject a woman to the pain and prolonged heartache of a failed pregnancy.

TL;DR version:
Abortions for all in the first two trimesters.
Abortions only if the mother's life is threatened or the fetus is unviable in the third trimester.

Well thought out argument.

CollegeDoog said:

Mad_Son said:

TL;DR the supreme court majority opinion in Roe v Wade.

SCOTUS (Scrotum is a more apt term) needs to be obliterated. Of all the 3 branches of government, SCROTUM is the one that is most out of control and needs some mother fucking checks and balances shoved down their throats. 9 people shouldn't be deciding the moral pathway of an entire nation.

Hi there. I see you're unfamiliar with the petty, venal, shitstains that make up the United States congress.

Congress can't really fuck too much shit up until the President vetoes their legislation, whereas the Supremes have established that it's almost unheard of for their decisions to be overruled by acts of Congress (ie Constitutional amendments). Imo, obk is right that SCOTUS needs further checks. Say an age limit of 75.