41 years of abortions in 5 minutes.

The woman spoke frequently at Klan rallies about exterminating the Negro population and this is the woman, so wise as to warrant a quote on a forum that advocates liberty?

I'm not sure if Smart3 can feel shame, but he should. What an embarrassment to reason at large. For those who have not yet ignored Smart3, or rather, subsequently disregarded anything he types, this is the person who defended the bulldozing of Rachel Corrie.
 
and those are precisely the women who should be getting abortions at that point.

Nope. Despite the soulless beliefs of those who think differently. Ya see I've been there (we finally split up right around 5-6 months) but choose life despite everyone thinking I was wrong excepting my current spouse. We have a culture now that lacks moral integrity and this is so easily justified because of folks like you.
 
The woman spoke frequently at Klan rallies about exterminating the Negro population and this is the woman, so wise as to warrant a quote on a forum that advocates liberty?

I'm not sure if Smart3 can feel shame, but he should. What an embarrassment to reason at large. For those who have not yet ignored Smart3, or rather, subsequently disregarded anything he types, this is the person who defended the bulldozing of Rachel Corrie.

I do not agree with some of the views of Sanger, though I'm not against targeting majority black areas. Even MLK Jr. supported Sanger's initiatives in those communities.

Please take the time to read the man's words in relation to Sanger:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/reverend-martin-luther-king-jr-4728.htm

____

and don't bring up Corrie in a discussion on abortion please.

If I was aborted as a fetus, would I be posting this sentence right now?
Nope. The better question is what if the sperm cell that led to your origin had lost the "race" and some other cell got the finish line? There could be hundreds of thousands of people in your shoes right now. All of which could have had the same origin.
 
Last edited:
So what if you limit a woman's freedom by not letting her kill her baby? Her care is that baby's property. She has no right to withhold it from him or her. Her freedom is already gone by virtue of her being a mother, and not because of some act of a state.
 
So what if you limit a woman's freedom by not letting her kill her baby? Her care is that baby's property. She has no right to withhold it from him or her. Her freedom is already gone by virtue of her being a mother, and not because of some act of a state.

It's not a baby until you can hold it in your hands.
 
It's not a baby until you can hold it in your hands.

I notice you didn't answer moostracs. A woman who disagrees with you (and there are many) completely screws up your whole narrative. You like to make it sound like you are on the side of women but you are on the side of death for convenience. You like to paint yourself as a champion of liberty and women's rights but you champion only death and deprivation. And you never fail to ignore the psychological price women pay for an abortion.

And I don't give you permission to take away my rights as a father and give them all to women. You speak only for yourself.

It's not a baby until you can hold it in your hands.

You have no authority to make that statement.
 
Last edited:
gandhi-on-abortion.jpg%3Fw%3D584

tumblr_m9abm7GYsg1qgu4ky.jpg
 
I do not agree with some of the views of Sanger, though I'm not against targeting majority black areas. Even MLK Jr. supported Sanger's initiatives in those communities.

Please take the time to read the man's words in relation to Sanger:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/reverend-martin-luther-king-jr-4728.htm
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I was unaware of this aspect of MLK's central planning views. Though no doubt his name (and words) are pimped by PP, I am nonetheless surprised. Perhaps I should have watched Frank's posted documentaries on the man. I don't think it would much matter, now, though. What would I care what MLK has to say on this matter beyond this?

Recently, the press has been filled with reports of sightings of flying saucers. While we need not give credence to these stories, they allow our imagination to speculate on how visitors from outer space would judge us. I am afraid they would be stupefied at our conduct. They would observe that for death planning we spend billions to create engines and strategies for war. They would also observe that we spend millions to prevent death by disease and other causes. Finally they would observe that we spend paltry sums for population planning, even though its spontaneous growth is an urgent threat to life on our planet. Our visitors from outer space could be forgiven if they reported home that our planet is inhabited by a race of insane men whose future is bleak and uncertain. --MLK Jr., PP Margaret Sanger Award acceptance speech (was given by his wife, though apparently written or at least endorsed by him)

No thank you, Mr. Central Planner. You aren't wise enough. Murder is murder. I don't give a damn who says else wise.

There is no reason to run MLK, Jr.'s name through the mud but I'd denounce his words as quickly as I denounce yours. I do wonder what he'd say at the notion that 1,250 black babies are murdered for every thousand births. Not only is it shameful, it is evil. A society that has normalized infanticide. And I'd argue the case that almost a 40/60 chance of being born or murdered (black babies) is in fact, infanticide. May God have mercy (on those who were ultimately powerless to prevent such things).

and don't bring up Corrie in a discussion on abortion please.
People should know the kind of positions you advocate for before reading anything you post if not simply because one may stumble upon this website to mistakenly think you represent the libertarian position. You are a pariah, your posts downright disturbing.

Your views and statements on various matters makes one thank the heavens you are not in any position of power. As bad as the worst are now, surely.

I do not agree with some of the views of Sanger
This is funny. Views, such as, I don't know... exterminating the blacks? How can you excuse it? How can anything that woman has done warrant an award in her honor when her primary motives were, and have led to (as evidenced by more dying than being birthed) the extermination of blacks? She'd be quite happy of the results and only work to further her cause. Her cause being, that is, to exterminate blacks, and other "undesirables." This is absurd.

Sometimes it is just so in your face you have to really just appreciate how backwards, immoral, and evil this society is. Wishing to fulfill a vision of exterminating blacks, and partially succeeding in many ways, is award warranted. You are shameful to post her garbage here.
 
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=37903

'Bioethicist': OK to kill babies after they're born

An internationally known Princeton “bioethicist” and animal-rights activist says he’d kill disabled babies if it were in the “best interests” of the family, because he sees no distinction in the child’s life whether it is born or not, and the world already allows abortion.

The comments come from Peter Singer, a controversial bioethics professor, who responded to a series of questions in the UK Independent this week.

Earlier, WND reported Singer believes the next few decades will see a massive upheaval in the concept of life and rights, with only “a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists” still protecting life as sacrosanct.

...
 
MURDER BY THE MOTHER HERSELF.

-MOTHER TERESA

Thanks, TaftFan. Thanks for introducing us to the elephant in the room:

Almost no pro-life policies make sense if they really see no difference between the abortion of a fetus and the murder of a four-year-old. However, nearly all pro-life policies make sense if they’re seeking to force women who have sex to “face the consequences.”

http://amptoons.com/blog/2011/06/27/do-they-really-believe-abortion-is-murder/

pro-life-belief-chart.png


The anti-liberty, so-called pro-life movement, an odd movement where those who want mothers to get away with murder are called pro life and those who don't want to further regulate the medical industry are called... pro-choice. That last part kind of makes sense.


He flat out refuses to even discuss a fathers rights so I'm pretty certain he'll do his best to ignore the baby too....

Doesn't seem to fit his world view as it's been expressed here.

Give it a rest. I'd love to give father's more freedom, but not more power (pre birth). However the suggestion that a woman needs the man's permission to give birth is not what I'd agree with. I would say outside of a marriage or suitable contract (or a rape) she ought not expect state-mandated child support. That's the more reasonable compromise.

Also, regarding young men:

The state of Colorado attempted to recover AFDC payments from a man who was just 12 when he became a father with an older woman. Contrast this with the allowances made for abortion for women who are raped (including statutory rape) even from many who are opposed to abortion in other circumstances.

Mothers are also permitted to give up their children for adoption, no questions asked, should they not want their children. In no case is a woman forced to raise or pay for a child conceived during a rape.

...

While there may be natural differences between men and women, in this day and age, it is simply wrong to place all the rights in the hands of women and all the responsibility on the shoulders of men.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-governance-feminism/legally-obscene/

It is a double standard but not one that is resolved by pretending murder isn't real murder or by increasing the medical and drug regulatory authority or further losing medical privacy rights.
 
Give it a rest. I'd love to give father's more freedom, but not more power (pre birth). However the suggestion that a woman needs the man's permission to give birth is not what I'd agree with. I would say outside of a marriage or suitable contract (or a rape) she ought not expect state-mandated child support. That's the more reasonable compromise.

A father is equally if not more responsible for a fetus post birth so it only makes sense that he have equal say in whether or not that fetus is carried to term.

It took both the mother and father to create life and giving one or the other the ability to end it without the others consent is morally and ethically wrong.

So unless you're able to couch a reasonable argument why only one parent should have the ability to end the life both created then you give it a rest.
 
The anti-liberty, so-called pro-life movement, an odd movement where those who want mothers to get away with murder are called pro life and those who don't want to further regulate the medical industry are called... pro-choice. That last part kind of makes sense.
What does this mean, specifically?

I am curious why changing the morality, or lack thereof, of Man is not included as a, at the least, righteous attempt. The murdering babies is the way of the world. Why change it?, I'm told.. if in nothing else, attitude.

Give it a rest. I'd love to give father's more freedom, but not more power (pre birth). However the suggestion that a woman needs the man's permission to give birth is not what I'd agree with. I would say outside of a marriage or suitable contract (or a rape) she ought not expect state-mandated child support. That's the more reasonable compromise.

Also, regarding young men:

It is a double standard but not one that is resolved by pretending murder isn't real murder or by increasing the medical and drug regulatory authority or further losing medical privacy rights.
Your article is far off, at least with regards to me. If you wish to defend it, we can have that conversation. So far as increasing medical and drug regulatory authority, that is a cop out. As if this system of marking and documenting every person birthed here is in particular need of expansion. Your medical history is as easy for Them to access as your criminal record. While it may not be considered "public information", this growing conglomeration of data which includes the merging of all medical information, or at the least, the sharing between hospitals, doctors, bureaucrats, etc., is a crime to privacy in any imagination of the words.

In contrast, pro-choicers tend to think that the abortion criminalization movement is motivated by a desire – perhaps an unconscious desire – to punish women for having sex.

I used to reject that latter view as a pointless ad hominem attack. Nowadays, I’m not so sure.
I call this bullshit on its face (and is why I call your article, bullshit). Who is this referring to, specifically? (Even a group whose beliefs fall within said outline.) Need it be argued? I'm pro-life. I'm for women having the rights that are inherently there simply by their being (the same rights as any other individual). Murdering their child (that is, paying someone to concave a baby's skull, to vacuum out brain matter, and dispose of the body, for instance) is not one of them. I care not of inconveniences. Will abortions be stopped by any litigation? No, there is an apparent, inherent evil in Man. You attempt to justify said evil... if at least in this instance (we do agree on a lot). I attempt, or at least attempt to change, your opinion, which your opinion is perhaps the opinion of the majority of people.

And it's supposedly a wonder how life is valued so cheap.
 
A father is equally if not more responsible for a fetus post birth so it only makes sense that he have equal say in whether or not that fetus is carried to term.

It took both the mother and father to create life and giving one or the other the ability to end it without the others consent is morally and ethically wrong.

So unless you're able to couch a reasonable argument why only one parent should have the ability to end the life both created then you give it a rest.

I'm not advocating a right to murder. If it is concluded to be the same as murder, it should have a similar treatment. Granted, infanticide is sometimes treated more like manslaughter so there are some common-law reasons why a mother murdering a fetus may not and ought not be given the same treatment as a 4 year old. But total immunity?!

Anyway, I would like to resolve the conflict in parental rights by men having less responsibility - outside of marriage or similar contract or rape - to correspond with their lessened decision making.

I'm not arguing it is morally right to end a viable fetus' life for either parent. What I won't do is support the joke that is so-called pro-life movement. You know the one where the punchline is the loss of our liberties.
 
What does this mean, specifically?

The pro-life movement is advocating the opposite of what it claims. It wants to excuse the mothers of murder and further subsidize and regulate the medical industry.

Murdering their child (that is, paying someone to concave a baby's skull, to vacuum out brain matter, and dispose of the body, for instance) is not one of them. I care not of inconveniences. Will abortions be stopped by any litigation? No, there is an apparent, inherent evil in Man. You attempt to justify said evil [BULL-FUCKING SHIT, LIAR]... if at least in this instance (we do agree on a lot). I attempt, or at least attempt to change, your opinion, which your opinion is perhaps the opinion of the majority of people.

No, I do not agree it is right to murder a viable, human fetus. Nor do I defend that decision. I have some minor questions with regard to legal standing and how to act on those concerns. Like it says on the Continental Congress currency: Mind Your [OWN] Business.

What opinion of mine would you possibly attempt to change?

If it is murder, develope a case and charge the murderers with murder! The so-called pro-life movement - as a whole - wants to continue to excuse/pardon/ignore the mother's role.

Note too that I'm not a politician who feels a need to vote for unconstitutional legislation due to misplaced priorities:

Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html

The movement is flawed and has been for a couple centuries. It has always been about the AMA - IMO. Which reminds me,

Your article is far off, at least with regards to me. If you wish to defend it, we can have that conversation.

It is NOT MY article. It supports a couple points I repeat but it takes the theory that pro-life is more of an anti-sex thing. I see pro-life as more pro-AMA, FWIW.

I get tired of having to point the clueless to the same video:



The movement has nothing to do with prosecuting murder and everything to do with increasing the scope of government.
 
Back
Top