Tweets by @bbqcrs

Hey Liberals: you know how you're always whining about how Conservatives aren't to be trusted? SURPRISE! We feel the exact same way about you! Too bad we can't just work together to make the world better...

Allen West’s Top 10 Reasons to Vote Democrat
10. I’ll vote Democrat because I can’t wait for college football season to be delayed or cancelled because the student athletes are union employees.
9. I’ll vote Democrat because I believe oil company’s profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.
8. I’ll vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.
7. I’ll vote Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
6. I’ll vote Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves. I am also thankful that we have a 911 service that get police to your home in order to identify your body after a home invasion.
5. I’ll vote Democrat because I’m not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive and comfy.
4. I’ll vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away the Social Security from those who paid into it.
3. I’ll vote Democrat because I believe that businesses should NOT be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.
2. I’ll vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.
And the Number One reason I’ll vote Democrat is:
1. I’ll vote Democrat because I think that it’s better to pay billions for oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher, fish or frog.

Allen West’s Top 10 Reasons to Vote Democrat

10. I’ll vote Democrat because I can’t wait for college football season to be delayed or cancelled because the student athletes are union employees.

9. I’ll vote Democrat because I believe oil company’s profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.

8. I’ll vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

7. I’ll vote Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

6. I’ll vote Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves. I am also thankful that we have a 911 service that get police to your home in order to identify your body after a home invasion.

5. I’ll vote Democrat because I’m not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive and comfy.

4. I’ll vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away the Social Security from those who paid into it.

3. I’ll vote Democrat because I believe that businesses should NOT be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.

2. I’ll vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

And the Number One reason I’ll vote Democrat is:

1. I’ll vote Democrat because I think that it’s better to pay billions for oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher, fish or frog.

unpackingprivilege:

therainbowgorilla:

political-dissonance:

therainbowgorilla:

apersnicketylemon:

political-dissonance:

I thought I’d post this so I could get a few dozen pro-choicers to try and convince me that they only use it because it’s “scientifically accurate”. Have at it, we know the real truth!

fe·tus 
Noun
An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception.
Synonyms
foetus - embryo - germ
—-
ba·by  NounA very young child, esp. one newly or recently born.AdjectiveComparatively small or immature of its kind: “a baby grand piano”.VerbTreat (someone) as a baby; pamper or be overprotective toward: “her aunt babied her”.Synonymsnoun.      infant - babe - child - kidadjective.      infantile - babyish - infant - children’sverb.      coddle - pamper
Now, even if you want to call a fetus (Which is the actual word for that stage of development, other stages include zygote, blastocyst and embryo) a person no person has ever had the right to use another persons body for any reason -including the preservation of their life- without that persons consent.
If you want to say abortion should be illegal then you are granting a group the right to use someones body without consent. That grants a fetus more rights than any born person. Please explain how that sounds like equality and not the oppression of every single person with a uterus.

Denying abortions also would make pregnant people have less right to their bodies than friken corpses.

Thank you for that well thought out and reasoned response. Corpses are what you have after you’ve aborted a human baby

Fetus. We just went the fuck over this. Fetus. That is the exact term for this stage of development. If we can call a fetus a baby, then I can call a two year old child an adult. But you don’t call a child the same thing as an adult, because they are two different terms for two different stages of development. It is completely incorrect to assert that a fetus is a baby. Calling a fetus a baby is solely emotional manipulation. The fucking word is fetus.
Nonetheless, my point was that corpses have bodily autonomy whereas you’re trying to take bodily autonomy from sentient, alive, born people. 
Now, if someone does not consent to being an organ donor while they are alive, do you think we should be allowed to take their organs when they die anyway? Guess what, that’s not how it works. When someone does not consent to being an organ donor while they are alive, then even when they die, their right to bodily autonomy remains. 
Even corpses are given the right to bodily autonomy.
By banning abortions, we would be stripping pregnant people of their right to bodily autonomy, something even corpses have.
You are literally trying to give pregnant people less rights to their body than corpses. 
Now, let’s talk about the “right to life” you probably think the fetus has. Even if we did give that right to fetuses, their right to life would not supersede anyone’s rights to their own body. If you were dying right next to me, and you could only live if I gave you one of my kidneys, guess what- If I didn’t want to give you my kidney, I wouldn’t fucking have to. You know why? Because your “right to life” still cannot infringe on my right to bodily autonomy. If the “right to life” superseded anyone’s right to bodily autonomy, then frequent organ donations and blood donations would be compulsory. But the “right to life” of people who need organ donations and blood donations cannot infringe on anyone’s right to bodily autonomy.
Likewise, even if we granted the fetus personhood, whatever “right to life” the fetus had could not infringe on my right to bodily autonomy. If the fetus is inside of me, using my body against my will, then it’s “right to life” is infringing upon my right to bodily autonomy. If I don’t have to give up a kidney even if you would die without it, then I do not have to give up my whole body to a fetus even if it would die without it. 

Why do they always say abortion advocates? I have literally never met someone who goes out and advocates that people have abortions. I have met plenty of people who go out and advocate that people should be able to make decisions about their own bodies. That is not the same thing.

Here’s the definition from Webster’s. I’d say that it is accurate in every sense. Focus on the second definition. I have encountered many people who specifically want people to have abortions. Search around Tumblr and you’ll find quite a few

unpackingprivilege:

therainbowgorilla:

political-dissonance:

therainbowgorilla:

apersnicketylemon:

political-dissonance:

I thought I’d post this so I could get a few dozen pro-choicers to try and convince me that they only use it because it’s “scientifically accurate”. Have at it, we know the real truth!

fe·tus 

Noun

An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception.

Synonyms

foetus - embryo - germ

—-

ba·by 
Noun
A very young child, esp. one newly or recently born.
Adjective
Comparatively small or immature of its kind: “a baby grand piano”.
Verb
Treat (someone) as a baby; pamper or be overprotective toward: “her aunt babied her”.
Synonyms
noun.      infant - babe - child - kid
adjective.      infantile - babyish - infant - children’s
verb.     

coddle - pamper

Now, even if you want to call a fetus (Which is the actual word for that stage of development, other stages include zygote, blastocyst and embryo) a person no person has ever had the right to use another persons body for any reason -including the preservation of their life- without that persons consent.

If you want to say abortion should be illegal then you are granting a group the right to use someones body without consent. That grants a fetus more rights than any born person. Please explain how that sounds like equality and not the oppression of every single person with a uterus.

Denying abortions also would make pregnant people have less right to their bodies than friken corpses.

Thank you for that well thought out and reasoned response. Corpses are what you have after you’ve aborted a human baby

Fetus. We just went the fuck over this. Fetus. That is the exact term for this stage of development. If we can call a fetus baby, then I can call a two year old child an adult. But you don’t call a child the same thing as an adult, because they are two different terms for two different stages of development. It is completely incorrect to assert that a fetus is a baby. Calling a fetus a baby is solely emotional manipulation. The fucking word is fetus.

Nonetheless, my point was that corpses have bodily autonomy whereas you’re trying to take bodily autonomy from sentient, alive, born people. 

Now, if someone does not consent to being an organ donor while they are alive, do you think we should be allowed to take their organs when they die anyway? Guess what, that’s not how it works. When someone does not consent to being an organ donor while they are alive, then even when they die, their right to bodily autonomy remains. 

Even corpses are given the right to bodily autonomy.

By banning abortions, we would be stripping pregnant people of their right to bodily autonomy, something even corpses have.

You are literally trying to give pregnant people less rights to their body than corpses. 

Now, let’s talk about the “right to life” you probably think the fetus has. Even if we did give that right to fetuses, their right to life would not supersede anyone’s rights to their own body. If you were dying right next to me, and you could only live if I gave you one of my kidneys, guess what- If I didn’t want to give you my kidney, I wouldn’t fucking have to. You know why? Because your “right to life” still cannot infringe on my right to bodily autonomy. If the “right to life” superseded anyone’s right to bodily autonomy, then frequent organ donations and blood donations would be compulsory. But the “right to life” of people who need organ donations and blood donations cannot infringe on anyone’s right to bodily autonomy.

Likewise, even if we granted the fetus personhood, whatever “right to life” the fetus had could not infringe on my right to bodily autonomy. If the fetus is inside of me, using my body against my will, then it’s “right to life” is infringing upon my right to bodily autonomy. If I don’t have to give up a kidney even if you would die without it, then I do not have to give up my whole body to a fetus even if it would die without it. 

Why do they always say abortion advocates? I have literally never met someone who goes out and advocates that people have abortions. I have met plenty of people who go out and advocate that people should be able to make decisions about their own bodies. That is not the same thing.

Here’s the definition from Webster’s. I’d say that it is accurate in every sense. Focus on the second definition. I have encountered many people who specifically want people to have abortions. Search around Tumblr and you’ll find quite a few

Source: political-dissonance

Hollywood Begs for a Tax Break in Some States, Including California

Of course they want tax breaks. Higher taxes should only be paid by us selfish middle class people…

APRIL 17, 2014

LOS ANGELES — The San Fernando Valley has served as home to award-winning movies like “E.T.,” “Boogie Nights” and “Crash.” But Raul Bocanegra, a state lawmaker representing a large swath of the valley, worries about the collapse of film and television production in his district and across Hollywood’s home state.

“There was a time when we actually made things,” said Mr. Bocanegra, referring to the automobile and aerospace manufacturing plants that have left California.

“Now, we make films here,” he said. “If we’re not careful, we will lose it.”

Mr. Bocanegra is leading an aggressive push, along with entertainment companies and Hollywood unions, to hand out as much as $2 billion in new tax breaks to increase movie and television production in California, which has lost business to states like New York with far more generous subsidies. Last year, for the first time, more studio movies were filmed in Louisiana than in California, according to the nonprofit FilmL.A.

Photo

“Major Crimes,” top left, gets incentives to shoot in California; “Boardwalk Empire” went elsewhere. Maryland is negotiating over subsidies for “House of Cards,” right.CreditJames Best Jr./The New York Times

But tax credits for Hollywood, a glamorous and mostly thriving industry, are not an easy sell. While California allots about $2 billion in annual general credits to state businesses for research and development, few if any industries have enjoyed state largess as big as the entertainment sector. And the recent arrest of a California state senator accused of accepting bribes in exchange for supporting film credit legislation has provided further ammunition for opponents of the program.

“I’m not a fan of tax credits in general,” Senator Lois Wolk, who leads the state Senate’s governance and finance committee, said in a statement that signaled opposition to the push. “In fact, I’m a real skeptic of all of them and have done everything possible to limit their size and duration.”

It is not just California. Lawmakers across the country are wrestling with the efficacy of these programs and how generous they should be in luring film and television production to their states.

Nationwide, about $1.5 billion in tax breaks is awarded to the film industry each year, according to a 2012 survey by The New York Times. Several tax policy groups oppose film incentives; a 2010 report by the nonprofit Tax Foundation said states justified them using “fanciful estimates of economic activity” and they largely just shift production from one sector to another without producing a net increase in economic activity or employment. (In a letter, California’s legislative analyst in 2012 told lawmakers that varying methodology and special circumstances in California diminished the reliability of often-conflicting studies.)

In Maryland this month, a $3.5 million tax credit proposal to support the “House of Cards” TV series, which is filmed in and around Baltimore, failed a vote in the Legislature. The makers of “House of Cards” had previously threatened to move to another state if they didn’t receive sufficient incentives. Maryland’s governor, Martin J. O’Malley, is working with the show to reach an agreement, said a press officer for the governor.

Critics in Minnesota have called for dismantling the state’s small incentives program, which was recently scheduled for a legislative audit of its effectiveness. The new television series “Fargo,” set in Minnesota, is being shot in Alberta, Canada, with a lift from incentives there.

Photo

Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York hopes the new CBS “Late Show” will stay in the city, which lured NBC’s “Tonight Show” from Los Angeles using tax breaks.CreditMike Groll/Associated Press

A coast-to-coast duel erupted after CBS named Stephen Colbert its new “Late Show” host, with Eric Garcetti, the mayor of Los Angeles, lobbying for the show to move to Los Angeles and the New York governor, Andrew M. Cuomo, calling for it to remain in New York. New York recently lured NBC’s “Tonight Show” from Burbank to Manhattan with a tax credit that has been valued at $20 million a year.

In California, a new law would expand the film credit program to cover not only smaller films and new TV series as it does now, but also major studio productions that cost as much as $100 million, and expensive, established television shows.

The bill, co-sponsored by Mr. Bocanegra and Mike Gatto, both Democratic legislators in California’s State Assembly, has been criticized by the California School Employees Association and the California Teachers Association. Pointing to what they said were $20 billion in cuts to state support for education in the last several years, the teachers’ group said in a statement, “Tax credits for special interest groups, corporations and others have, over the last decade, depleted our general fund of billions of dollars.”

Supporters of the proposed increase in tax incentives for Hollywood point to a report published by the Milken Institute in February noting that California lost more than 16,000 production jobs since 2004, while other states with substantial subsidy programs, including Texas and North Carolina, together gained that many, and more.

Louisiana last year served as the location for 18 of 108 feature films, versus 15 in California, according to FilmL.A., which monitors film permits in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles logged about 7,000 feature film location shooting days last year, down 50 percent from a 1996 peak of roughly 14,000 days, while television dramas were shot on location here for about 4,100 days, down 39 percent from their recent peak in 2008.

Continue reading the main story

RECENT COMMENTS

Ronald Cohen

 1 hour ago

Surprise that profit-making businesses grossing hundreds of millions of dollars need to be supported by John Q. Public so they can make yet…

Bill Gilwood

 2 hours ago

When does this addition of new tax credits end? When all public services have been defunded?

Mary

 3 hours ago

As someone who works in the auditing of what qualifies for a tax credit in films and their effectiveness to a local economy, I can say that…

  • SEE ALL COMMENTS
  •  
  • WRITE A COMMENT

“This iconic California industry is at a tipping point from which it might not return,” Kathy Garmezy, a senior executive at the Directors Guild of America, said last week.

Photo

Mayor Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles also wants the “Late Show,” lobbying for it to move to California.CreditMonica Almeida/The New York Times

But public talk — “We’re going to Sacramento and storming that place like never before,” Mr. Garcetti said recently — has been the loud part of a mostly quiet campaign. And there are some hitches and obstacles in the existing laws that might yet keep producers from tapping California tax credits for their big movies or TV dramas like “Boardwalk Empire” and “The Good Wife,” which have already gone elsewhere.

One complication is that an existing, smaller incentive program in California — it is helping to underwrite the “Entourage” movie and the cable series “Major Crimes” — will exhaust all of its $100 million-a-year funding in June 2015, though the program technically exists for two years beyond that. That funding gap results in part from practices that have accelerated the assignment of some credits.

California’s proposed five-year credit program would kick in on July 1, 2016. But its backers, including Kenneth Ziffren, director of the Los Angeles entertainment industry and production office, fret that a rule barring overlapping laws could prevent the granting of new credits until the old program expired a year later, leaving California exposed to competitors.

“We’d be a year behind, as it is, and the legislation in its current form won’t kick in for two years,” Mr. Ziffren said. Lawmakers will find a way to close the gap, Mr. Bocanegra said.

CONTINUE READING THE MAIN STORY12COMMENTS

Bargaining over the size of the new tax credits program is most likely to begin next month, after delivery of a revised proposal for next year’s state budget. Supporters of film credits are hoping ultimately to get the assent of Gov. Jerry Brown, who earlier this year proposed a budget with roughly $4 billion in various reserves. To date, the governor has taken no public position on the tax credit.

The proposed enhanced tax incentives will face a serious test in the California State Senate, which was recently stung by the indictment of Ron Calderon. Mr. Calderon has pleaded not guilty to charges that, among other things, he tried to peddle his influence over film subsidies to an undercover F.B.I. agent posing as a Hollywood executive.

“It certainly casts a dark cloud over the whole subject,” Ms. Wolk, the state senator, said in her statement. “We should not be considering a renewal or expansion of the very same legislation that was and may still be at the center of an ongoing F.B.I. investigation into corruption in the Legislature.”

Good luck trying this…

Good luck trying this…

NSA Knew About And 'Exploited' Heartbleed For Years: Bloomberg

To the surprise of no one…

This is what all teachers will be like after growing up on Common Core…

This is what all teachers will be like after growing up on Common Core…

protego-et-servio:

political-dissonance:

huge-weeaboobs:

protego-et-servio:

political-dissonance:

protego-et-servio:

political-dissonance:

protego-et-servio:

political-dissonance:

#EndAbortion

Murder - the illegal action of killing another person, under no authorization to kill them and with premeditation and malice. 
Abortion - a legal procedure of terminating a fetus (killing a fetus; fetuses are not sentient people), done under the authorization of the pregnant person and - while planned - done out of need, want, or desperation.
That’s the difference.  Willing ignorance, my ass.

Ignorance: a lack of knowledge, understanding, or education : the state of being ignorant
I’ll use it in a sentence for you: Killing a human being at any stage of their existence without provocation and thinking that it isn’t murder in a spiritual sense even if it isn’t in a legal sense is IGNORANT 

"A spiritual sense."  Define that, please, and then explain why "spiritual sense" has anything to do with this debate.  Or are you talking about morality?  "Morality" which is subjective from person to person and from society to society?  Is that your way of saying, "Abortion is murder, because it makes me uncomfortable!"  I think it is…
The legal definition of murder - because it is a legal term - has been provided for you and it differs greatly from abortion.
PS: Fetuses are not people. (Though they are human, biologically.  And yes, there is a difference between human and person.)  They’re not sentient and they are not equal or more valuable than the sentient pregnant people.  Fetuses do not get rights, they do not get to use someone’s body without consent.

So you’re using legality and cultural traditions as your moral compass?
If you live in the US, over 1/2 the population now disagrees with abortion as a means of de-facto birth control. I guess if you’re leaving morality to cultural definition then it’s time to join the pro-life side.
Many people with no religious beliefs claim to believe in spirituality. One definition of “spirituality” is “pertaining to the spirit”. Morality and religion are not synonymous.  Clearly part of your moral code includes defending the killing of helpless unborn children because you’ve rationalized that they don’t “exist” enough to deserve to continue living if you don’t want them to. 

My moral compass generally relies on critical thinking and whatever I feel is the right thing to do.  I was questioning why you were bring morality into this discussion, because it has no point in this discussion.  Morality differs from person to person and your image was saying “there’s no difference” between abortion and murder.  Obviously, there are many differences - as I illustrated - between the two.
As for your assertion that half of the US population is pro-life: Most people are afraid to align themselves to pro-choice, due to stigma against abortion and its supporters.  Many are uneducated about the actual facts behind abortion.  Also, many people say they’re “personally pro-life,” which is pretty much being pro-choice.  (Are you also factoring how many people don’t feel it’s their business or who are on the fence?  Or does everyone actually have an opinion on abortion in the US?  Personally, I don’t trust polls like that, because there’s so many questionable factors: such as answers changing when in public versus when in isolation.)
Spirituality and morality are not synonymous.  Part of my moral code is fighting against people stigmatizing abortion, because people who have chosen abortion and who will choose abortion don’t deserve to be hurt by toxic stigma.  In other words: I cherish sentient people and their needs, wants, and health over that of non-sentient fetuses.
(When did I ever say fetuses don’t exist?  They exist, but they’re not sentient and they don’t have any rights, let alone the right to use someone’s body without ongoing consent.)

DESTROYED that anti choicer, good job.

LOL! it’s always easy to find a cheerleader among the ignorant. There’s no winning this one for your side. Regardless of who says what, it ends with your side being wrong. People who kill other people without provocation are always wrong

If you want to be technical “being pregnant” provokes needing an abortion.  The fetus does provoke abortion. 
Pro-choice isn’t wrong, nice try.

Your delusional opinion is noted

protego-et-servio:

political-dissonance:

huge-weeaboobs:

protego-et-servio:

political-dissonance:

protego-et-servio:

political-dissonance:

protego-et-servio:

political-dissonance:

#EndAbortion

Murder - the illegal action of killing another person, under no authorization to kill them and with premeditation and malice. 

Abortion - a legal procedure of terminating a fetus (killing a fetus; fetuses are not sentient people), done under the authorization of the pregnant person and - while planned - done out of need, want, or desperation.

That’s the difference.  Willing ignorance, my ass.

Ignorance: a lack of knowledge, understanding, or education : the state of being ignorant

I’ll use it in a sentence for you: Killing a human being at any stage of their existence without provocation and thinking that it isn’t murder in a spiritual sense even if it isn’t in a legal sense is IGNORANT 

"A spiritual sense."  Define that, please, and then explain why "spiritual sense" has anything to do with this debate.  Or are you talking about morality?  "Morality" which is subjective from person to person and from society to society?  Is that your way of saying, "Abortion is murder, because it makes me uncomfortable!"  I think it is…

The legal definition of murder - because it is a legal term - has been provided for you and it differs greatly from abortion.

PS: Fetuses are not people. (Though they are human, biologically.  And yes, there is a difference between human and person.)  They’re not sentient and they are not equal or more valuable than the sentient pregnant people.  Fetuses do not get rights, they do not get to use someone’s body without consent.

So you’re using legality and cultural traditions as your moral compass?

If you live in the US, over 1/2 the population now disagrees with abortion as a means of de-facto birth control. I guess if you’re leaving morality to cultural definition then it’s time to join the pro-life side.

Many people with no religious beliefs claim to believe in spirituality. One definition of “spirituality” is “pertaining to the spirit”. Morality and religion are not synonymous.  Clearly part of your moral code includes defending the killing of helpless unborn children because you’ve rationalized that they don’t “exist” enough to deserve to continue living if you don’t want them to. 

My moral compass generally relies on critical thinking and whatever I feel is the right thing to do.  I was questioning why you were bring morality into this discussion, because it has no point in this discussion.  Morality differs from person to person and your image was saying “there’s no difference” between abortion and murder.  Obviously, there are many differences - as I illustrated - between the two.

As for your assertion that half of the US population is pro-life: Most people are afraid to align themselves to pro-choice, due to stigma against abortion and its supporters.  Many are uneducated about the actual facts behind abortion.  Also, many people say they’re “personally pro-life,” which is pretty much being pro-choice.  (Are you also factoring how many people don’t feel it’s their business or who are on the fence?  Or does everyone actually have an opinion on abortion in the US?  Personally, I don’t trust polls like that, because there’s so many questionable factors: such as answers changing when in public versus when in isolation.)

Spirituality and morality are not synonymous.  Part of my moral code is fighting against people stigmatizing abortion, because people who have chosen abortion and who will choose abortion don’t deserve to be hurt by toxic stigma.  In other words: I cherish sentient people and their needs, wants, and health over that of non-sentient fetuses.

(When did I ever say fetuses don’t exist?  They exist, but they’re not sentient and they don’t have any rights, let alone the right to use someone’s body without ongoing consent.)

DESTROYED that anti choicer, good job.

LOL! it’s always easy to find a cheerleader among the ignorant. There’s no winning this one for your side. Regardless of who says what, it ends with your side being wrong. People who kill other people without provocation are always wrong

If you want to be technical “being pregnant” provokes needing an abortion.  The fetus does provoke abortion. 

Pro-choice isn’t wrong, nice try.

Your delusional opinion is noted

Source: political-dissonance

#MensRights

#MensRights

huge-weeaboobs:

protego-et-servio:

political-dissonance:

protego-et-servio:

political-dissonance:

protego-et-servio:

political-dissonance:

#EndAbortion

Murder - the illegal action of killing another person, under no authorization to kill them and with premeditation and malice. 
Abortion - a legal procedure of terminating a fetus (killing a fetus; fetuses are not sentient people), done under the authorization of the pregnant person and - while planned - done out of need, want, or desperation.
That’s the difference.  Willing ignorance, my ass.

Ignorance: a lack of knowledge, understanding, or education : the state of being ignorant
I’ll use it in a sentence for you: Killing a human being at any stage of their existence without provocation and thinking that it isn’t murder in a spiritual sense even if it isn’t in a legal sense is IGNORANT 

"A spiritual sense."  Define that, please, and then explain why "spiritual sense" has anything to do with this debate.  Or are you talking about morality?  "Morality" which is subjective from person to person and from society to society?  Is that your way of saying, "Abortion is murder, because it makes me uncomfortable!"  I think it is…
The legal definition of murder - because it is a legal term - has been provided for you and it differs greatly from abortion.
PS: Fetuses are not people. (Though they are human, biologically.  And yes, there is a difference between human and person.)  They’re not sentient and they are not equal or more valuable than the sentient pregnant people.  Fetuses do not get rights, they do not get to use someone’s body without consent.

So you’re using legality and cultural traditions as your moral compass?
If you live in the US, over 1/2 the population now disagrees with abortion as a means of de-facto birth control. I guess if you’re leaving morality to cultural definition then it’s time to join the pro-life side.
Many people with no religious beliefs claim to believe in spirituality. One definition of “spirituality” is “pertaining to the spirit”. Morality and religion are not synonymous.  Clearly part of your moral code includes defending the killing of helpless unborn children because you’ve rationalized that they don’t “exist” enough to deserve to continue living if you don’t want them to. 

My moral compass generally relies on critical thinking and whatever I feel is the right thing to do.  I was questioning why you were bring morality into this discussion, because it has no point in this discussion.  Morality differs from person to person and your image was saying “there’s no difference” between abortion and murder.  Obviously, there are many differences - as I illustrated - between the two.
As for your assertion that half of the US population is pro-life: Most people are afraid to align themselves to pro-choice, due to stigma against abortion and its supporters.  Many are uneducated about the actual facts behind abortion.  Also, many people say they’re “personally pro-life,” which is pretty much being pro-choice.  (Are you also factoring how many people don’t feel it’s their business or who are on the fence?  Or does everyone actually have an opinion on abortion in the US?  Personally, I don’t trust polls like that, because there’s so many questionable factors: such as answers changing when in public versus when in isolation.)
Spirituality and morality are not synonymous.  Part of my moral code is fighting against people stigmatizing abortion, because people who have chosen abortion and who will choose abortion don’t deserve to be hurt by toxic stigma.  In other words: I cherish sentient people and their needs, wants, and health over that of non-sentient fetuses.
(When did I ever say fetuses don’t exist?  They exist, but they’re not sentient and they don’t have any rights, let alone the right to use someone’s body without ongoing consent.)

DESTROYED that anti choicer, good job.

LOL! it’s always easy to find a cheerleader among the ignorant. There’s no winning this one for your side. Regardless of who says what, it ends with your side being wrong. People who kill other people without provocation are always wrong

huge-weeaboobs:

protego-et-servio:

political-dissonance:

protego-et-servio:

political-dissonance:

protego-et-servio:

political-dissonance:

#EndAbortion

Murder - the illegal action of killing another person, under no authorization to kill them and with premeditation and malice. 

Abortion - a legal procedure of terminating a fetus (killing a fetus; fetuses are not sentient people), done under the authorization of the pregnant person and - while planned - done out of need, want, or desperation.

That’s the difference.  Willing ignorance, my ass.

Ignorance: a lack of knowledge, understanding, or education : the state of being ignorant

I’ll use it in a sentence for you: Killing a human being at any stage of their existence without provocation and thinking that it isn’t murder in a spiritual sense even if it isn’t in a legal sense is IGNORANT 

"A spiritual sense."  Define that, please, and then explain why "spiritual sense" has anything to do with this debate.  Or are you talking about morality?  "Morality" which is subjective from person to person and from society to society?  Is that your way of saying, "Abortion is murder, because it makes me uncomfortable!"  I think it is…

The legal definition of murder - because it is a legal term - has been provided for you and it differs greatly from abortion.

PS: Fetuses are not people. (Though they are human, biologically.  And yes, there is a difference between human and person.)  They’re not sentient and they are not equal or more valuable than the sentient pregnant people.  Fetuses do not get rights, they do not get to use someone’s body without consent.

So you’re using legality and cultural traditions as your moral compass?

If you live in the US, over 1/2 the population now disagrees with abortion as a means of de-facto birth control. I guess if you’re leaving morality to cultural definition then it’s time to join the pro-life side.

Many people with no religious beliefs claim to believe in spirituality. One definition of “spirituality” is “pertaining to the spirit”. Morality and religion are not synonymous.  Clearly part of your moral code includes defending the killing of helpless unborn children because you’ve rationalized that they don’t “exist” enough to deserve to continue living if you don’t want them to. 

My moral compass generally relies on critical thinking and whatever I feel is the right thing to do.  I was questioning why you were bring morality into this discussion, because it has no point in this discussion.  Morality differs from person to person and your image was saying “there’s no difference” between abortion and murder.  Obviously, there are many differences - as I illustrated - between the two.

As for your assertion that half of the US population is pro-life: Most people are afraid to align themselves to pro-choice, due to stigma against abortion and its supporters.  Many are uneducated about the actual facts behind abortion.  Also, many people say they’re “personally pro-life,” which is pretty much being pro-choice.  (Are you also factoring how many people don’t feel it’s their business or who are on the fence?  Or does everyone actually have an opinion on abortion in the US?  Personally, I don’t trust polls like that, because there’s so many questionable factors: such as answers changing when in public versus when in isolation.)

Spirituality and morality are not synonymous.  Part of my moral code is fighting against people stigmatizing abortion, because people who have chosen abortion and who will choose abortion don’t deserve to be hurt by toxic stigma.  In other words: I cherish sentient people and their needs, wants, and health over that of non-sentient fetuses.

(When did I ever say fetuses don’t exist?  They exist, but they’re not sentient and they don’t have any rights, let alone the right to use someone’s body without ongoing consent.)

DESTROYED that anti choicer, good job.

LOL! it’s always easy to find a cheerleader among the ignorant. There’s no winning this one for your side. Regardless of who says what, it ends with your side being wrong. People who kill other people without provocation are always wrong

(via dongcle)

Source: political-dissonance

protego-et-servio:

political-dissonance:

protego-et-servio:

political-dissonance:

protego-et-servio:

political-dissonance:

#EndAbortion

Murder - the illegal action of killing another person, under no authorization to kill them and with premeditation and malice. 
Abortion - a legal procedure of terminating a fetus (killing a fetus; fetuses are not sentient people), done under the authorization of the pregnant person and - while planned - done out of need, want, or desperation.
That’s the difference.  Willing ignorance, my ass.

Ignorance: a lack of knowledge, understanding, or education : the state of being ignorant
I’ll use it in a sentence for you: Killing a human being at any stage of their existence without provocation and thinking that it isn’t murder in a spiritual sense even if it isn’t in a legal sense is IGNORANT 

"A spiritual sense."  Define that, please, and then explain why "spiritual sense" has anything to do with this debate.  Or are you talking about morality?  "Morality" which is subjective from person to person and from society to society?  Is that your way of saying, "Abortion is murder, because it makes me uncomfortable!"  I think it is…
The legal definition of murder - because it is a legal term - has been provided for you and it differs greatly from abortion.
PS: Fetuses are not people. (Though they are human, biologically.  And yes, there is a difference between human and person.)  They’re not sentient and they are not equal or more valuable than the sentient pregnant people.  Fetuses do not get rights, they do not get to use someone’s body without consent.

So you’re using legality and cultural traditions as your moral compass?
If you live in the US, over 1/2 the population now disagrees with abortion as a means of de-facto birth control. I guess if you’re leaving morality to cultural definition then it’s time to join the pro-life side.
Many people with no religious beliefs claim to believe in spirituality. One definition of “spirituality” is “pertaining to the spirit”. Morality and religion are not synonymous.  Clearly part of your moral code includes defending the killing of helpless unborn children because you’ve rationalized that they don’t “exist” enough to deserve to continue living if you don’t want them to. 

My moral compass generally relies on critical thinking and whatever I feel is the right thing to do.  I was questioning why you were bring morality into this discussion, because it has no point in this discussion.  Morality differs from person to person and your image was saying “there’s no difference” between abortion and murder.  Obviously, there are many differences - as I illustrated - between the two.
As for your assertion that half of the US population is pro-life: Most people are afraid to align themselves to pro-choice, due to stigma against abortion and its supporters.  Many are uneducated about the actual facts behind abortion.  Also, many people say they’re “personally pro-life,” which is pretty much being pro-choice.  (Are you also factoring how many people don’t feel it’s their business or who are on the fence?  Or does everyone actually have an opinion on abortion in the US?  Personally, I don’t trust polls like that, because there’s so many questionable factors: such as answers changing when in public versus when in isolation.)
Spirituality and morality are not synonymous.  Part of my moral code is fighting against people stigmatizing abortion, because people who have chosen abortion and who will choose abortion don’t deserve to be hurt by toxic stigma.  In other words: I cherish sentient people and their needs, wants, and health over that of non-sentient fetuses.
(When did I ever say fetuses don’t exist?  They exist, but they’re not sentient and they don’t have any rights, let alone the right to use someone’s body without ongoing consent.)

And yet with all of your supposed “critical thinking”: you still choose to ignore the fact that not even science has determined the exact point that human life begins. Your side has made a judgement call based on what you want and you have been pushing it ever since. You have no science, just opinion and yet you claim to be the more educated and high minded one in this conversation. All your talk of “sentience” is just inconsequential fluff to obscure the reality of what you actually support. Your use of it absolutely illustrates my point that your belief is willing ignorance 

protego-et-servio:

political-dissonance:

protego-et-servio:

political-dissonance:

protego-et-servio:

political-dissonance:

#EndAbortion

Murder - the illegal action of killing another person, under no authorization to kill them and with premeditation and malice. 

Abortion - a legal procedure of terminating a fetus (killing a fetus; fetuses are not sentient people), done under the authorization of the pregnant person and - while planned - done out of need, want, or desperation.

That’s the difference.  Willing ignorance, my ass.

Ignorance: a lack of knowledge, understanding, or education : the state of being ignorant

I’ll use it in a sentence for you: Killing a human being at any stage of their existence without provocation and thinking that it isn’t murder in a spiritual sense even if it isn’t in a legal sense is IGNORANT 

"A spiritual sense."  Define that, please, and then explain why "spiritual sense" has anything to do with this debate.  Or are you talking about morality?  "Morality" which is subjective from person to person and from society to society?  Is that your way of saying, "Abortion is murder, because it makes me uncomfortable!"  I think it is…

The legal definition of murder - because it is a legal term - has been provided for you and it differs greatly from abortion.

PS: Fetuses are not people. (Though they are human, biologically.  And yes, there is a difference between human and person.)  They’re not sentient and they are not equal or more valuable than the sentient pregnant people.  Fetuses do not get rights, they do not get to use someone’s body without consent.

So you’re using legality and cultural traditions as your moral compass?

If you live in the US, over 1/2 the population now disagrees with abortion as a means of de-facto birth control. I guess if you’re leaving morality to cultural definition then it’s time to join the pro-life side.

Many people with no religious beliefs claim to believe in spirituality. One definition of “spirituality” is “pertaining to the spirit”. Morality and religion are not synonymous.  Clearly part of your moral code includes defending the killing of helpless unborn children because you’ve rationalized that they don’t “exist” enough to deserve to continue living if you don’t want them to. 

My moral compass generally relies on critical thinking and whatever I feel is the right thing to do.  I was questioning why you were bring morality into this discussion, because it has no point in this discussion.  Morality differs from person to person and your image was saying “there’s no difference” between abortion and murder.  Obviously, there are many differences - as I illustrated - between the two.

As for your assertion that half of the US population is pro-life: Most people are afraid to align themselves to pro-choice, due to stigma against abortion and its supporters.  Many are uneducated about the actual facts behind abortion.  Also, many people say they’re “personally pro-life,” which is pretty much being pro-choice.  (Are you also factoring how many people don’t feel it’s their business or who are on the fence?  Or does everyone actually have an opinion on abortion in the US?  Personally, I don’t trust polls like that, because there’s so many questionable factors: such as answers changing when in public versus when in isolation.)

Spirituality and morality are not synonymous.  Part of my moral code is fighting against people stigmatizing abortion, because people who have chosen abortion and who will choose abortion don’t deserve to be hurt by toxic stigma.  In other words: I cherish sentient people and their needs, wants, and health over that of non-sentient fetuses.

(When did I ever say fetuses don’t exist?  They exist, but they’re not sentient and they don’t have any rights, let alone the right to use someone’s body without ongoing consent.)

And yet with all of your supposed “critical thinking”: you still choose to ignore the fact that not even science has determined the exact point that human life begins. Your side has made a judgement call based on what you want and you have been pushing it ever since. You have no science, just opinion and yet you claim to be the more educated and high minded one in this conversation. All your talk of “sentience” is just inconsequential fluff to obscure the reality of what you actually support. Your use of it absolutely illustrates my point that your belief is willing ignorance 

Source: political-dissonance

protego-et-servio:

political-dissonance:

protego-et-servio:

political-dissonance:

#EndAbortion

Murder - the illegal action of killing another person, under no authorization to kill them and with premeditation and malice. 
Abortion - a legal procedure of terminating a fetus (killing a fetus; fetuses are not sentient people), done under the authorization of the pregnant person and - while planned - done out of need, want, or desperation.
That’s the difference.  Willing ignorance, my ass.

Ignorance: a lack of knowledge, understanding, or education : the state of being ignorant
I’ll use it in a sentence for you: Killing a human being at any stage of their existence without provocation and thinking that it isn’t murder in a spiritual sense even if it isn’t in a legal sense is IGNORANT 

"A spiritual sense."  Define that, please, and then explain why "spiritual sense" has anything to do with this debate.  Or are you talking about morality?  "Morality" which is subjective from person to person and from society to society?  Is that your way of saying, "Abortion is murder, because it makes me uncomfortable!"  I think it is…
The legal definition of murder - because it is a legal term - has been provided for you and it differs greatly from abortion.
PS: Fetuses are not people. (Though they are human, biologically.  And yes, there is a difference between human and person.)  They’re not sentient and they are not equal or more valuable than the sentient pregnant people.  Fetuses do not get rights, they do not get to use someone’s body without consent.

So you’re using legality and cultural traditions as your moral compass?
If you live in the US, over 1/2 the population now disagrees with abortion as a means of de-facto birth control. I guess if you’re leaving morality to cultural definition then it’s time to join the pro-life side.
Many people with no religious beliefs claim to believe in spirituality. One definition of “spirituality” is “pertaining to the spirit”. Morality and religion are not synonymous.  Clearly part of your moral code includes defending the killing of helpless unborn children because you’ve rationalized that they don’t “exist” enough to deserve to continue living if you don’t want them to. 

protego-et-servio:

political-dissonance:

protego-et-servio:

political-dissonance:

#EndAbortion

Murder - the illegal action of killing another person, under no authorization to kill them and with premeditation and malice. 

Abortion - a legal procedure of terminating a fetus (killing a fetus; fetuses are not sentient people), done under the authorization of the pregnant person and - while planned - done out of need, want, or desperation.

That’s the difference.  Willing ignorance, my ass.

Ignorance: a lack of knowledge, understanding, or education : the state of being ignorant

I’ll use it in a sentence for you: Killing a human being at any stage of their existence without provocation and thinking that it isn’t murder in a spiritual sense even if it isn’t in a legal sense is IGNORANT 

"A spiritual sense."  Define that, please, and then explain why "spiritual sense" has anything to do with this debate.  Or are you talking about morality?  "Morality" which is subjective from person to person and from society to society?  Is that your way of saying, "Abortion is murder, because it makes me uncomfortable!"  I think it is…

The legal definition of murder - because it is a legal term - has been provided for you and it differs greatly from abortion.

PS: Fetuses are not people. (Though they are human, biologically.  And yes, there is a difference between human and person.)  They’re not sentient and they are not equal or more valuable than the sentient pregnant people.  Fetuses do not get rights, they do not get to use someone’s body without consent.

So you’re using legality and cultural traditions as your moral compass?

If you live in the US, over 1/2 the population now disagrees with abortion as a means of de-facto birth control. I guess if you’re leaving morality to cultural definition then it’s time to join the pro-life side.

Many people with no religious beliefs claim to believe in spirituality. One definition of “spirituality” is “pertaining to the spirit”. Morality and religion are not synonymous.  Clearly part of your moral code includes defending the killing of helpless unborn children because you’ve rationalized that they don’t “exist” enough to deserve to continue living if you don’t want them to. 

Source: political-dissonance

huge-weeaboobs:

protego-et-servio:

political-dissonance:

#EndAbortion

Murder - the illegal action of killing another person, under no authorization to kill them and with premeditation and malice. 
Abortion - a legal procedure of terminating a fetus (killing a fetus; fetuses are not sentient people), done under the authorization of the pregnant person and - while planned - done out of need, want, or desperation.
That’s the difference.  Willing ignorance, my ass.

lmao at this anti-choicer’s ignorance #EndProLifers

Ignorance isn’t actually bliss. I’d be careful about embracing it even if I were an anti-lifer like you

huge-weeaboobs:

protego-et-servio:

political-dissonance:

#EndAbortion

Murder - the illegal action of killing another person, under no authorization to kill them and with premeditation and malice. 

Abortion - a legal procedure of terminating a fetus (killing a fetus; fetuses are not sentient people), done under the authorization of the pregnant person and - while planned - done out of need, want, or desperation.

That’s the difference.  Willing ignorance, my ass.

lmao at this anti-choicer’s ignorance #EndProLifers

Ignorance isn’t actually bliss. I’d be careful about embracing it even if I were an anti-lifer like you

(via dongcle)

Source: political-dissonance

protego-et-servio:

political-dissonance:

#EndAbortion

Murder - the illegal action of killing another person, under no authorization to kill them and with premeditation and malice. 
Abortion - a legal procedure of terminating a fetus (killing a fetus; fetuses are not sentient people), done under the authorization of the pregnant person and - while planned - done out of need, want, or desperation.
That’s the difference.  Willing ignorance, my ass.

Ignorance: a lack of knowledge, understanding, or education : the state of being ignorant
I’ll use it in a sentence for you: Killing a human being at any stage of their existence without provocation and thinking that it isn’t murder in a spiritual sense even if it isn’t in a legal sense is IGNORANT 

protego-et-servio:

political-dissonance:

#EndAbortion

Murder - the illegal action of killing another person, under no authorization to kill them and with premeditation and malice. 

Abortion - a legal procedure of terminating a fetus (killing a fetus; fetuses are not sentient people), done under the authorization of the pregnant person and - while planned - done out of need, want, or desperation.

That’s the difference.  Willing ignorance, my ass.

Ignorance: a lack of knowledge, understanding, or education : the state of being ignorant

I’ll use it in a sentence for you: Killing a human being at any stage of their existence without provocation and thinking that it isn’t murder in a spiritual sense even if it isn’t in a legal sense is IGNORANT 

Source: political-dissonance

#EndAbortion

#EndAbortion

moderatetosevere:

mcmuph1n:

political-dissonance:

mcmuph1n:

originalslimjim:

tombstone-actual:

political-dissonance:

tombstone-actual:

wolf-1:

cobra-23:

coochieclaws:

political-dissonance:

I thought I’d post this so I could get a few dozen pro-choicers to try and convince me that they only use it because it’s “scientifically accurate”. Have at it, we know the real truth!

Lol I really don’t care what term is used. A baby has no right to use another person’s body against their will.

Would you be ok if your mom decided not to have you? Be honest.

If you have sex, bear the consequences. By consenting to do so, you’re acknowledging and accepting that the end result could possibly be pregnancy. So that “parasite” is something you created; that’s on you bitch. It is most certainly not against your will. It is a human life, it has every right that you do. (killing a pregnant woman lands you a double homicide, so the little one is considered a life. How about that?) If you really don’t want a kid, put the little guy/girl up for adoption. There are people out there desperately trying and failing to have kids, and you’re gonna throw yours in a doctors garbage can. Find that baby a good home with caring parents, because God knows I wouldn’t want parents who were willing to kill me because I wasn’t planned.
TL;DRYou’re a coward

or.. you know.. you could let people do what they want with their bodies. because not everyone can afford to raise a child.. or live in the environment where doing so is healthy.

It may be your body but you made a “choice” that created a new body. I always found it ironic that you guys call yourselves “pro-choice”. If you are pregnant then you already made the choice. The “choice” you guys defend so vehemently is a choice to undo the outcome of the first choice. The best choice you can make at that point if you’re incapable of raising the child is adoption. That’s a choice that will bless someone else’s life rather than just making you a cold-blooded killer.
Come back with that argument when it’s legal to put any substances you want into your body or drive without a seatbelt…

Cold blooded killer? Really?

And what about rape? Should a victim of rape have to bear the child of their rapist? They never consented to sexual activity, so it’s “not on them”. Forcing someone to have the child of someone they did not consent to have sexual activities with is fucked up.

And here again we have people trying to make decisions for others based on what they think someone “should” do. Op, you have no right to dictate to anyone what they should do, your beliefs are obviously not shared with everyone and you’re a fool if you think you have all the answers.

…said the person who thinks that it’s noble to make a choice that kills another human being for their own selfishness and convenience…

You don’t fucking know me. You have no basis or right to assume that I think it’s “noble” to abort a child. The decision to terminate pregnancy is never an easy one. I know, I have had friends who have had to make that decision. It is a painful, traumatizing, life altering decision and process, and it’s made worse by people like you standing outside of clinics calling people murderers. What I do believe is that a pregnant person has every right to decide for any reason that they do not want to carry a fetus to term. And who the fuck are you to tell anyone they can’t make decisions which will affect the rest of their lives? Are you dense? So someone who is raped and finds out they’re pregnant should be forced to carry the bastard child of a violent monster? A person who will certainly die during labor should just accept it? How about a college student with a promising future who made a mistake? Or just a person working a minimum wage job that can barely support themselves? I could go on and on, there are countless reasons a person could want to terminate pregnancy, and they are all the sole and distinct decision of that person and that person alone. And you think you have some right to call those people killers? Wait let me guess, you might say “they made the choice to have sex so they should deal with it”.
You’re a piece of garbage for telling other people how to live their lives. Nobody’s abortion affects you in the slightest other than to offend your narrow-minded selfish sensibilities.
It’s barely a life. It has no experiences, no ties to the outside world, no emotional bonds, nothing except a heartbeat - IF it’s not terminated by week 6. So before you say it again, I will say no, it is not selfish for someone to do what is best for them at the cost of a child they didn’t want anyway. Nobody should be forced to raise and care for a child they had no intention of having, unless they themselves made the decision to do so.
"you had sex and accidentally got pregnant so you should live with that for the rest of your life." (I’m paraphrasing to a degree but you basically said that) What the fuck do you care whether a person has a baby or not? It literally has no effect on your life. You’re a deplorable human being and it pains me to even recognize you as such.
I have so many thoughts I can’t even properly organize them. The basic gist of my reply, though, is fuck you. Fuck you and everyone who shares your belief that you should be allowed to shame people for looking out for their own best interest. Don’t try to act all high and mighty because you think you’re defending life. You’re advocating the disruption of a life long-since in progress for the preservation of a life which hasn’t even begun yet. Believe whatever you want, but how dare you try to impose your “morals” on people you have nothing to do with.

My view, and I try not to impose it on anyone else, it is just how I see it. When someone chooses to have sex, a baby is a very reasonable outcome. If you have sex and wonder how the hell you got pregnant, you’re not the brightest person out there. So as for the promising future bit, ehhh. People make choices all the time, and people make mistakes all the time, and people do live with those mistakes. Everyone has made choices they wish they could take back, thats why we have a word for it. Regret. People make choices they regret all the time, ending a life is never a justified counter measure. 
In Re: to the rape situation, the victim didn’t make that choice, so its not hypocritical to have nuanced views that take certain aspects into account.
In Re: to health issues, “if” the mothers life is put in danger, then its not really a choice to just end one life, but rather a balancing of one for the other. Save the mother or save the child, it is a hard choice but no one can be judged for being forced to pick one life over another. And saying that pregnancy can ruin a life is not the same as ending it. So don’t try and analogize the difference. 
Now I am always for freedom, and liberty and individual independence. But I do also believe that one persons liberties end where anthers begin. That is why I am against theft, rape, murder… In the case of abortions, women have the liberty to have sex or not, and they must deal with the consequences of their actions, just like men. If a female gets pregnant, yes the man gets to walk away, but if he does the mother can pursue child support. The man does not get to dictate if she keeps it or not, he doesn’t get to make the choice for her for his benefit. Now I’m not advocating that “poor men” have to deal with the consequences thus so should women, but rather just show casing that EVERYONE needs to deal with what they have done. 
"It’s barely a life. It has no experiences, no ties to the outside world, no emotional bonds, nothing except a heartbeat." Here you admit that it is a life, you qualify it with barely, but barely life is still life. And it should not be up to someone’s regret to choose to prevent that life and those experiences, and all those possible ties, and emotional bonds. Just as one person’s liberties end where anthers start, a woman’s right to her body ends where the other body starts, that heartbeat, it belongs to another being.  And no one should be able to end the life of another. 
And for those fuck faces that refer to fetuses as “parasites” I have no will to discus this issue with them as they are devoid of any relevant knowledge. A parasite doesn’t ever turn into a human, and a fetus doesn’t remain a “parasite.” A parasite is an invading life form, and a human embryo is created from within. I’m not about to explain the whole baby making process but you could argue that sperm is the invading parasite fine, but the egg is not, and the embryo is a fertilized egg, not a single sperm transforming inside a woman eating away at her.
I personally don’t care if someone gets pregnant, it doesn’t affect me. It often doesn’t affect me when some dude murders his wife, and it doesn’t affect me when someone breaks into someone else’s house and robs them blind, but I care because I expect more from society than just what affects me, I care so sue me.  And being someone who is against murder, the thought of murdering a baby doesn’t sit well, and the fact that we have laws against murder makes me think it doesn’t sit well with a lot of people.  

Outstanding!^^^^

moderatetosevere:

mcmuph1n:

political-dissonance:

mcmuph1n:

originalslimjim:

tombstone-actual:

political-dissonance:

tombstone-actual:

wolf-1:

cobra-23:

coochieclaws:

political-dissonance:

I thought I’d post this so I could get a few dozen pro-choicers to try and convince me that they only use it because it’s “scientifically accurate”. Have at it, we know the real truth!

Lol I really don’t care what term is used. A baby has no right to use another person’s body against their will.

Would you be ok if your mom decided not to have you? Be honest.

If you have sex, bear the consequences. By consenting to do so, you’re acknowledging and accepting that the end result could possibly be pregnancy. So that “parasite” is something you created; that’s on you bitch. It is most certainly not against your will. It is a human life, it has every right that you do. (killing a pregnant woman lands you a double homicide, so the little one is considered a life. How about that?) If you really don’t want a kid, put the little guy/girl up for adoption. There are people out there desperately trying and failing to have kids, and you’re gonna throw yours in a doctors garbage can. Find that baby a good home with caring parents, because God knows I wouldn’t want parents who were willing to kill me because I wasn’t planned.

TL;DR
You’re a coward

or.. you know.. you could let people do what they want with their bodies. because not everyone can afford to raise a child.. or live in the environment where doing so is healthy.

It may be your body but you made a “choice” that created a new body. I always found it ironic that you guys call yourselves “pro-choice”. If you are pregnant then you already made the choice. The “choice” you guys defend so vehemently is a choice to undo the outcome of the first choice. The best choice you can make at that point if you’re incapable of raising the child is adoption. That’s a choice that will bless someone else’s life rather than just making you a cold-blooded killer.

Come back with that argument when it’s legal to put any substances you want into your body or drive without a seatbelt…

Cold blooded killer? Really?

And what about rape? Should a victim of rape have to bear the child of their rapist? They never consented to sexual activity, so it’s “not on them”. Forcing someone to have the child of someone they did not consent to have sexual activities with is fucked up.

And here again we have people trying to make decisions for others based on what they think someone “should” do. Op, you have no right to dictate to anyone what they should do, your beliefs are obviously not shared with everyone and you’re a fool if you think you have all the answers.

…said the person who thinks that it’s noble to make a choice that kills another human being for their own selfishness and convenience…

You don’t fucking know me. You have no basis or right to assume that I think it’s “noble” to abort a child. The decision to terminate pregnancy is never an easy one. I know, I have had friends who have had to make that decision. It is a painful, traumatizing, life altering decision and process, and it’s made worse by people like you standing outside of clinics calling people murderers. What I do believe is that a pregnant person has every right to decide for any reason that they do not want to carry a fetus to term. And who the fuck are you to tell anyone they can’t make decisions which will affect the rest of their lives? Are you dense? So someone who is raped and finds out they’re pregnant should be forced to carry the bastard child of a violent monster? A person who will certainly die during labor should just accept it? How about a college student with a promising future who made a mistake? Or just a person working a minimum wage job that can barely support themselves? I could go on and on, there are countless reasons a person could want to terminate pregnancy, and they are all the sole and distinct decision of that person and that person alone. And you think you have some right to call those people killers? Wait let me guess, you might say “they made the choice to have sex so they should deal with it”.

You’re a piece of garbage for telling other people how to live their lives. Nobody’s abortion affects you in the slightest other than to offend your narrow-minded selfish sensibilities.

It’s barely a life. It has no experiences, no ties to the outside world, no emotional bonds, nothing except a heartbeat - IF it’s not terminated by week 6. So before you say it again, I will say no, it is not selfish for someone to do what is best for them at the cost of a child they didn’t want anyway. Nobody should be forced to raise and care for a child they had no intention of having, unless they themselves made the decision to do so.

"you had sex and accidentally got pregnant so you should live with that for the rest of your life." (I’m paraphrasing to a degree but you basically said that) What the fuck do you care whether a person has a baby or not? It literally has no effect on your life. You’re a deplorable human being and it pains me to even recognize you as such.


I have so many thoughts I can’t even properly organize them. The basic gist of my reply, though, is fuck you. Fuck you and everyone who shares your belief that you should be allowed to shame people for looking out for their own best interest. Don’t try to act all high and mighty because you think you’re defending life. You’re advocating the disruption of a life long-since in progress for the preservation of a life which hasn’t even begun yet. Believe whatever you want, but how dare you try to impose your “morals” on people you have nothing to do with.

My view, and I try not to impose it on anyone else, it is just how I see it. When someone chooses to have sex, a baby is a very reasonable outcome. If you have sex and wonder how the hell you got pregnant, you’re not the brightest person out there. So as for the promising future bit, ehhh. People make choices all the time, and people make mistakes all the time, and people do live with those mistakes. Everyone has made choices they wish they could take back, thats why we have a word for it. Regret. People make choices they regret all the time, ending a life is never a justified counter measure. 

In Re: to the rape situation, the victim didn’t make that choice, so its not hypocritical to have nuanced views that take certain aspects into account.

In Re: to health issues, “if” the mothers life is put in danger, then its not really a choice to just end one life, but rather a balancing of one for the other. Save the mother or save the child, it is a hard choice but no one can be judged for being forced to pick one life over another. And saying that pregnancy can ruin a life is not the same as ending it. So don’t try and analogize the difference. 

Now I am always for freedom, and liberty and individual independence. But I do also believe that one persons liberties end where anthers begin. That is why I am against theft, rape, murder… In the case of abortions, women have the liberty to have sex or not, and they must deal with the consequences of their actions, just like men. If a female gets pregnant, yes the man gets to walk away, but if he does the mother can pursue child support. The man does not get to dictate if she keeps it or not, he doesn’t get to make the choice for her for his benefit. Now I’m not advocating that “poor men” have to deal with the consequences thus so should women, but rather just show casing that EVERYONE needs to deal with what they have done. 

"It’s barely a life. It has no experiences, no ties to the outside world, no emotional bonds, nothing except a heartbeat." Here you admit that it is a life, you qualify it with barely, but barely life is still life. And it should not be up to someone’s regret to choose to prevent that life and those experiences, and all those possible ties, and emotional bonds. Just as one person’s liberties end where anthers start, a woman’s right to her body ends where the other body starts, that heartbeat, it belongs to another being.  And no one should be able to end the life of another. 

And for those fuck faces that refer to fetuses as “parasites” I have no will to discus this issue with them as they are devoid of any relevant knowledge. A parasite doesn’t ever turn into a human, and a fetus doesn’t remain a “parasite.” A parasite is an invading life form, and a human embryo is created from within. I’m not about to explain the whole baby making process but you could argue that sperm is the invading parasite fine, but the egg is not, and the embryo is a fertilized egg, not a single sperm transforming inside a woman eating away at her.

I personally don’t care if someone gets pregnant, it doesn’t affect me. It often doesn’t affect me when some dude murders his wife, and it doesn’t affect me when someone breaks into someone else’s house and robs them blind, but I care because I expect more from society than just what affects me, I care so sue me.  And being someone who is against murder, the thought of murdering a baby doesn’t sit well, and the fact that we have laws against murder makes me think it doesn’t sit well with a lot of people.  

Outstanding!^^^^

Source: political-dissonance