Comic Genesis Forums

Well, if they wanted to do something that was guaranteed to piss off the Left, they just did it. One of my friends has been ranting inconsolably about it:

Ok, now THIS makes me sick.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/24/ ... ortion.ap/

Scary thing is, with assholes like Alito running the Supreme Court, this sort of shit will become the norm.

I seriously hope this doesn't go unchallenged, I feel for the women who will have to seek ILLEGAL means to rid themselves of the horrors of a rape incident. Or how about the babies that will have to go unfed because the government made it necessary for kids to be born? Oh yeah, adoption, right? well, they don't just TAKE your baby like that, the process isn't as simple as the toothless hicks would have you believe...

I swear, for such an advanced nation, we sure have a surplus of crazed, idiot, fundamentalist country bumpkins. The same people who think it's okay to teach Creationism and Evolution side by side and made it into law in one county in Georgia... Grrr...

Now we work towards overturning Roe v. Wade. Then we'll work on reinstating Plessy v. Ferguson, or how about reversing the decision on Hustler Magazine v. Falwell? Let's just take away EVERYONE's rights while we're at it!

Here's something for you fucking idiot pro-lifers to ponder: Do you really think that criminalizing Abortion will do anything positive? Consider that you're gonna go back to forcing desperate women to seek underground docs to pull out the fetus in unsupervised, possibly unsanitary conditions. You're gonna reinstate the black market for illegal abortions, which will allow any asshole with a rusty coathanger and a fake diploma to charge whatever he feels like for his "services." YOU ARE NOT SOLVING THE FUCKING PROBLEM.

Please do not go to this page.
http://www.b3ta.com/challenge/america/

ok, no offense, but here's some points for you to chew over:

1) In the ancient Roman family, all members of the family were considered extensions of the paterfamilias (head of the family, i.e. The oldest male citizen), and he could dispose of them with little or no consequence. Abortion is not a step toward overturning Plessy v. Ferguson, it's a step away from a society where a father can kill his wife and children because they're inconvenient for them.

2) Let us consider the argument that most pro-death (as I chose to call them) people chose to use; "The foetus isn't really alive. It doesn't really count in society. " Chidren between the age of Birth and 18 years old don't have voting rights, nor do they often produce anything for society other than arts and crafts projects. What they have is the right to life, as well as the potential to become productive citizens of society. This is why we punish child molesters and murderers. With abortion in place, it's only one step farther for a mother to be able to murder her 8 year old, merely because she can't support it and doesn't want it.

3) In Plessy v. Ferguson, the supreme court made it's legislation because the laws against black Americans were unconstitutional in that it violated their rights as determined in the constitution. Roe v Wade does not acknowledge the rights of future infants, future human beings.

4) IF, as you claim it, the black market for illegal abortions will climb if Roe is overturned, then the consequences of that should deter all but the most irresponsible from seeking abortions.

I know we can't all value human life as much as everyone else, nor be as responsible as everyone else, but that gives no-one the right to violate the rights of a human being, regardless of wether or not they're inside or out side another person.

Post-Script: I am by no means a toothless hick, you dumbass ignorant baby-killing piece of dickspit.

IronFox wrote:ok, no offense, but here's some points for you to chew over:

No offense taken. I didn't agree with him anyway.

1) In the ancient Roman family, all members of the family were considered extensions of the paterfamilias (head of the family, i.e. The oldest male citizen), and he could dispose of them with little or no consequence. Abortion is not a step toward overturning Plessy v. Ferguson, it's a step away from a society where a father can kill his wife and children because they're inconvenient for them.

I think his Plessy remark was intended as part of a VERY sarcastic slippery-slope argument.

2) Let us consider the argument that most pro-death (as I chose to call them) people chose to use; "The foetus isn't really alive. It doesn't really count in society. " Chidren between the age of Birth and 18 years old don't have voting rights, nor do they often produce anything for society other than arts and crafts projects. What they have is the right to life, as well as the potential to become productive citizens of society. This is why we punish child molesters and murderers. With abortion in place, it's only one step farther for a mother to be able to murder her 8 year old, merely because she can't support it and doesn't want it.

3) In Plessy v. Ferguson, the supreme court made it's legislation because the laws against black Americans were unconstitutional in that it violated their rights as determined in the constitution. Roe v Wade does not acknowledge the rights of future infants, future human beings.

4) IF, as you claim it, the black market for illegal abortions will climb if Roe is overturned, then the consequences of that should deter all but the most irresponsible from seeking abortions.

This guy has a very Hobbesian view of humanity - he reasons that if you want an abortion, you'll go to any length to get one, no matter HOW irresponsible, because all human beings are irresponsible and fucked-up by nature. It's a very negative view of mankind, but he's an atheist, so it comes with the territory.

I know we can't all value human life as much as everyone else, nor be as responsible as everyone else, but that gives no-one the right to violate the rights of a human being, regardless of wether or not they're inside or out side another person.

Post-Script: I am by no means a toothless hick, you dumbass ignorant baby-killing piece of dickspit.

I'll make sure to pass that on to him.

IronFox wrote: I know we can't all value human life as much as everyone else, nor be as responsible as everyone else, but that gives no-one the right to violate the rights of a human being, regardless of wether or not they're inside or out side another person.

That's his thing. You can't stop women from getting abortions if they want them. I've heard this argument from him before: If you make it illegal, they'll just go to the nearest back-alley quack and risk their health to get it done. Making abortion illegal won't make it nonexistent, any more than Prohibition stopped people from drinking alcohol, or than the current drug laws stop people from toking, pillpopping, or shooting up.

Of course, you really have to have a complete lack of faith in humanity to make this argument, but as I said, he's <strike>an atheist</strike> a nihilist - he has a complete lack of faith in anything.

JakeWasHere wrote:That's his thing. You can't stop women from getting abortions if they want them. I've heard this argument from him before: If you make it illegal, they'll just go to the nearest back-alley quack and risk their health to get it done. Making abortion illegal won't make it nonexistent, any more than Prohibition stopped people from drinking alcohol, or than the current drug laws stop people from toking, pillpopping, or shooting up.

Of course, you really have to have a complete lack of faith in humanity to make this argument, but as I said, he's <strike>an atheist</strike> a nihilist - he has a complete lack of faith in anything.

Uhh, Jake?

Prohibition DIDN'T stop people from drinking, current drug laws don't stop folks from taking recreational pharmecuticals, gun control laws don't keep guns out of the hands of people who REALLY want one.

Seems to me, he has plenty of faith in humanity... faith that we can sink to the bottom of the sea of morality faster than a streamlined bank vault filled to the brim with lead fishing weights.

And given human history, that's not a cynical attitude... just a realistic one.

Always bet on a human being a right selfish bastard, and you'll win your bet at least 51% of the time.

EdBecerra wrote:

JakeWasHere wrote:That's his thing. You can't stop women from getting abortions if they want them. I've heard this argument from him before: If you make it illegal, they'll just go to the nearest back-alley quack and risk their health to get it done. Making abortion illegal won't make it nonexistent, any more than Prohibition stopped people from drinking alcohol, or than the current drug laws stop people from toking, pillpopping, or shooting up.

Of course, you really have to have a complete lack of faith in humanity to make this argument, but as I said, he's <strike>an atheist</strike> a nihilist - he has a complete lack of faith in anything.

Uhh, Jake?

Prohibition DIDN'T stop people from drinking, current drug laws don't stop folks from taking recreational pharmecuticals, gun control laws don't keep guns out of the hands of people who REALLY want one.

And making abortion illegal won't stop women from getting them, which seems to stick in E's craw.

Seems to me, he has plenty of faith in humanity... faith that we can sink to the bottom of the sea of morality faster than a streamlined bank vault filled to the brim with lead fishing weights.

And given human history, that's not a cynical attitude... just a realistic one.

Always bet on a human being a right selfish bastard, and you'll win your bet at least 51% of the time.

E is not only a cynic, he tells me he's convinced the human race will go extinct in the next 200 years. He also tells me that this is not our problem, since there's nothing we can do to stop it.

...I can comprehend atheism, but not nihilism.

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


Then perhaps the US should review a particular law that recognises someone as being legally alive if the heart is beating out of its own volition.

A human heart starts beating about 10 DAYS after conception.


¡Zacatepóngolas!

Until next time, remember:

I

AM

THE

J.A.M. (a.k.a. Numbuh i: "Just because I'm imaginary doesn't mean I don't exist")

Good evening.

[WARP!!!]

Hey, it's about time at least a state government stopped subsidizing prostitution and murder.
Maybe in time the Federal government will wise up as well.

I seriously hope this doesn't go unchallenged, I feel for the women who will have to seek ILLEGAL means to rid themselves of the horrors of a rape incident. Or how about the babies that will have to go unfed because the government made it necessary for kids to be born? Oh yeah, adoption, right? well, they don't just TAKE your baby like that, the process isn't as simple as the toothless hicks would have you believe...

So... Better to kill the unborn babies rather then to let them starve, huh? ...How Humane..

...And frankly, I don't believe in punishing the unborn child for the horrid crime of it's father.

*steps up, cracking his knuckles, eyes shifting around* Alright, this topic is one of my two no.1 hot button topics. I'm only gonna say this once, 'cause once I get goin' on this, I get ugly.

Convenience abortion, that is abortion an unborn child because you don't feel like having children at the time, is a sick, depraved act of cruelty. Science has been unable to pin down the exact time when life begins during conception. For this reason alone it shouldn't be legal because when it comes to protecting innocent lives, we must give the benefit of the doubt.

It goes against the morals of ever major religion on earth: Christianity, Judism, Islam, and Bhuddism. There isn't a recognized organized religion on the planet that I've heard of that condones it. Maybe Wiccanism, but even there I have my doubts.

It places political protocol at a greater value than human life. All this "It's the mother's body, she can do what she wants with it" horse shit is saying that it's more important that a woman have the ability to decide to make an immoral decision that negatively affects someone else than an innocent child lives.

It's a method that's used by both communists and facists to control their populations. In China if a mother is going to have more than one child, she has to abort one of them. In North Korea, pregnant women in prison are forced to abort their children. (And if the children are actually born, the prison authorities kill the children before their mothers' eyes, sometimes make the mothers do it, and kill the mothers if they so much as cry, but that's beside the point, though it does give pause for thought that aborting a child by choice is a tactic used by a country that does this).

Abortion clinic physicians are notorious for failing to inform their patients of the myrad diseases they can contract from the proceedure and the potential of them becoming permanently scarred or rendered sterile. They are perhaps the worst kinds of doctors alive.

So in short, while aborting to save a mother's life is an unfortunate necessity and I've come to belive, at least for now, that in select cases of rape the option should be left open to the victim, aborting for convenience, just because you don't feel like having a child so you can keep club hopping every night or have some wild fling whenever you want is a cruel, sadistic act of murder. Nobody has the right to shirk their responsibilities at the cost of an innocent life. You can't prove their not alive, so given the stakes, we can't continue to take the risk that we are with keeping it legal; the risk that we're regularly slaughtering innocent babies' lives.

Now I've come to realize that this is a hard topic to talk about. I like it when people agree with me, and I've come to be understanding for those who are still debating the issue for themselves; at least in them there's the chance that some day they'll see the point that I and many others like me have been trying to make. But people who continue to be flat-out, 100% pro-choice make me sick. I try to debate and argue the point with them when I can, and I've convinced a few to switch sides, mostly as a result of debunking stereotypes that the pro-life side has been slapped with.

But some have refused to see reason, chosing instead to stay pro-choice, many because it's essentially the easiest thing to do; their arguments boil down to the idea that they're pro-choice by default, they don't know much about the issue, so they just go along mindlessly with whatever the government tells them is legal. Others have more complicated reasons for being pro-choice, but to me in the end it doesn't really matter; all pro-choice people, by the very fact of being pro-choice, add support to the political platform that this legalized baby murder should stay legal. So I continue to try and debate the issue with those that will listen because I've seen that people are capable of changing their minds. But to those of you who are pro-choice and have no desire or intention to ever change I have one thing to say:

you amoral, self centered, cold-blooded, morally stangant, bleeding heart, uncaring, baby murder condoning pro-choice mother fuckers can kiss my Roman Catholic, Pro-Life, Right-Wing nut job ass, and then go fuck yourselves with a DAMN CATTLE PROD UNTIL YOU FRY YOUR DAMN BRAINS OUT YOU WORTHLESS PIECES OF HUMAN GARBAGE!

Point that needs to be made here:

Unlike a law, which overturned, makes what was previously illegal now legal, overturning Roe v Wade will not make all abortions illegal.

Roe v Wade would simply be replaced with a newer ruling. That ruling may, or may not, allow states to outlaw all abortions. What it will not do is outlaw all abortions in all states.

Mike Fang wrote:*steps up, cracking his knuckles, eyes shifting around* Alright, this topic is one of my two no.1 hot button topics. I'm only gonna say this once, 'cause once I get goin' on this, I get ugly.

Convenience abortion, that is abortion an unborn child because you don't feel like having children at the time, is a sick, depraved act of cruelty. Science has been unable to pin down the exact time when life begins during conception. For this reason alone it shouldn't be legal because when it comes to protecting innocent lives, we must give the benefit of the doubt.

It goes against the morals of ever major religion on earth: Christianity, Judism, Islam, and Bhuddism. There isn't a recognized organized religion on the planet that I've heard of that condones it. Maybe Wiccanism, but even there I have my doubts.

It places political protocol at a greater value than human life. All this "It's the mother's body, she can do what she wants with it" horse shit is saying that it's more important that a woman have the ability to decide to make an immoral decision that negatively affects someone else than an innocent child lives.

Having had to listen to E's ranting about this for hours on end, I know exactly what he'd say here: "Of COURSE most of the world agrees that it's wrong. But a thing being wrong or illegal won't stop people from DOING it."

It's a method that's used by both communists and facists to control their populations. In China if a mother is going to have more than one child, she has to abort one of them. In North Korea, pregnant women in prison are forced to abort their children. (And if the children are actually born, the prison authorities kill the children before their mothers' eyes, sometimes make the mothers do it, and kill the mothers if they so much as cry, but that's beside the point, though it does give pause for thought that aborting a child by choice is a tactic used by a country that does this).

Abortion clinic physicians are notorious for failing to inform their patients of the myrad diseases they can contract from the proceedure and the potential of them becoming permanently scarred or rendered sterile. They are perhaps the worst kinds of doctors alive.

Hang on, I'm hearing E's hectoring voice in my head again: "The worst kinds of doctors are the kind that operate outside the establishment, WITHOUT LICENSES, charging as much as they like to rid a desperate woman of her 'inconvenience'. Making abortion LEGAL didn't put these guys out of business, making it illegal again won't stop them either. In fact, they'll have MORE customers: The Responsible Medical Establishment (and you know how 'responsible' THEY are) will turn some stupid bitch down, and she'll go to one of these quacks who will do what the others won't."

So in short, while aborting to save a mother's life is an unfortunate necessity and I've come to belive, at least for now, that in select cases of rape the option should be left open to the victim, aborting for convenience, just because you don't feel like having a child so you can keep club hopping every night or have some wild fling whenever you want is a cruel, sadistic act of murder. Nobody has the right to shirk their responsibilities at the cost of an innocent life. You can't prove their not alive, so given the stakes, we can't continue to take the risk that we are with keeping it legal; the risk that we're regularly slaughtering innocent babies' lives.

"Tell him this, Jake: He can call it murder all he likes - hell, even the government could start calling it murder - but it won't stop all those selfish women (or couples) from going off to get their little parasites wiped out. It's human nature - when you know what you want, if you want it badly enough, even if other people think you shouldn't want it, you'll fight your friends, your family, and the government to get it."

Now I've come to realize that this is a hard topic to talk about. I like it when people agree with me, and I've come to be understanding for those who are still debating the issue for themselves; at least in them there's the chance that some day they'll see the point that I and many others like me have been trying to make. But people who continue to be flat-out, 100% pro-choice make me sick. I try to debate and argue the point with them when I can, and I've convinced a few to switch sides, mostly as a result of debunking stereotypes that the pro-life side has been slapped with.

But some have refused to see reason, chosing instead to stay pro-choice, many because it's essentially the easiest thing to do; their arguments boil down to the idea that they're pro-choice by default, they don't know much about the issue, so they just go along mindlessly with whatever the government tells them is legal. Others have more complicated reasons for being pro-choice, but to me in the end it doesn't really matter; all pro-choice people, by the very fact of being pro-choice, add support to the political platform that this legalized baby murder should stay legal. So I continue to try and debate the issue with those that will listen because I've seen that people are capable of changing their minds. But to those of you who are pro-choice and have no desire or intention to ever change I have one thing to say:

you amoral, self centered, cold-blooded, morally stangant, bleeding heart, uncaring, baby murder condoning pro-choice mother fuckers can kiss my Roman Catholic, Pro-Life, Right-Wing nut job ass, and then go fuck yourselves with a DAMN CATTLE PROD UNTIL YOU FRY YOUR DAMN BRAINS OUT YOU WORTHLESS PIECES OF HUMAN GARBAGE!

I know exactly how he would respond to that, but I won't repeat it in polite company. Especially since it would take longer to read than the rest of this entire post.

What I find amusing is the title of the thread:

"SCOTUS steps in it"

The original poster then points to a law passed by the South Dakota legislature, and may be signed by the Governor.

Exactly how is the Supreme Court involved in this, yet?

Don't put the cart before the horse.

It has been suggested elsewhere that the standard for life should be the generation of brainwaves.

It's a rational and viable compromise, at least.... we already use CESSATION of brainwave activity as a demarcation for the END of life, so there's already a medical precedent for it. And it leaves a window of, if I recall, several weeks for things like the abortion pill....

But your average tooth-gnashing pro-abortionist would rather give birth to a cactus than see even a clinical compromise. Hell, they won't even compromise on "partial birth" abortion!

There is a dread and terrible consequence coming for our nations' devaluing of human life... a horrendous karmic debt that is already of ruinous proportions and grows every day.

God save us all from what comes next.

RHJunior wrote:It has been suggested elsewhere that the standard for life should be the generation of brainwaves.

It's a rational and viable compromise, at least.... we already use CESSATION of brainwave activity as a demarcation for the END of life, so there's already a medical precedent for it. And it leaves a window of, if I recall, several weeks for things like the abortion pill....

But your average tooth-gnashing pro-abortionist would rather give birth to a cactus than see even a clinical compromise. Hell, they won't even compromise on "partial birth" abortion!

There is a dread and terrible consequence coming for our nations' devaluing of human life... a horrendous karmic debt that is already of ruinous proportions and grows every day.

God save us all from what comes next.

True, and then there's the Terry Schivo debacle. All her higher brain functions were gone but the medula still functioned. She was alive in the sense that there is some brain activity, but everything that made her a sentient being ended a long time ago.

The extremes of offspring killing run from no doing it from the moment of conception on (an awful lot of faiths though not all of them) to it's ok up to 6 months after birth (See: Peter Singer, currently a named bioethics chair at Princeton).

Now the logic and reason for it are varied. The child is a danger to the life or health of the mother, inconvenient, deformed, the product of incest, rape, or really bad judgment.

What the SD bill does is to dial down the allowable abortions to those that will prevent death or the dysfunction of a major bodily organ. Funny enough, it also doesn't seem to ban emergency contraception so the Catholic Church is actually not going to be 100% happy with this.

I'm taking a look at the bill text here. Whatever your position, read the thing and don't fire off without being informed.

Now that I've outlined some facts, here's my opinion. This is likely to reduce abortion in SD significantly as well as to increase live births. It's up to those who are pro-life to now step up to the plate and help so that those babies coming into the world have a viable place to grow up in a decent manner whether it's with mom or in a decent alternative whether orphanage or adoption. I'm in favor of it for both moral reasons (which I won't go into here) and practical ones. The West in general is on the verge of demographic suicide and the US is playing with going down the same destructive path.

I'm getting flashes to movies like "Soilent Green" and "Logan's Run", world's where life and death are regulated and determined not by God and nature, but by the mandate of some imperfect, falliable government that gets to decide which innocent people get to live and die and when they may do so. But I think the real karmaic result that will happen before that ever does is another revolution against the government.

JakeWasHere wrote: "Tell him this, Jake: He can call it murder all he likes - hell, even the government could start calling it murder - but it won't stop all those selfish women (or couples) from going off to get their little parasites wiped out. It's human nature - when you know what you want, if you want it badly enough, even if other people think you shouldn't want it, you'll fight your friends, your family, and the government to get it."

Their little PARASITES? I don't know who exactly this "E" is that Jake talks to, but he's obviously a cynical sack of crap who doesn't give a damn about human life from that kind of language. And it is NOT human nature to take or to whatever the hell you want no matter who disagrees with it; if that was the case there would be no laws whatsoever because nobody on earth would give a damn about anybody but themselves. And people who actually DO think that way, that nothing is more important than satisfying their own desires even at a cost to other people, are mentally derranged and need to have their antisocial asses locked up in a psycho ward before they become serial killers or career criminals of some kind.

TMLutas wrote: What the SD bill does is to dial down the allowable abortions to those that will prevent death or the dysfunction of a major bodily organ. Funny enough, it also doesn't seem to ban emergency contraception so the Catholic Church is actually not going to be 100% happy with this.

Hrmn. Well at least it's a step in the right direction.

now how are children supposed to take it, that they're greateful for their mom not aborting them, or that mom is still a virgin even? i can see it now being taught in kindergarden or even head start or even in the stroller 'arn't you glad mom choose to have you?' Does a parent ever expect to controll that child when he/she's a teenager telling them that all of his/her life?