Save the baby. Abort the mother.

[Down Low]

I was watching CSPAN coverage of Irish parliament committee debate on abortion.

A femcvnt doctor rambled on awhile about how some women can't take their antidepressant meds during their pregnancies, so their doctors should be allowed to perform theraputic abortions. (Isn't there a recent thread here about how antidepressant meds are known to cause suicidal depression? Isn't it a good thing to get women off these drugs when the lives and well-beings of children become involved?)

Another femb1tch said that two pregnant women in Ireland committed suicide in the last three years. According to the doc, that proves that abortionists should be able to convince them to kill the baby instead. Abortion's illegal in Ireland but legal in England. It's no secret that thousands of Irish women travel the short distance to England every year to have no-questions-asked abortions. The two pregnant women who killed themselves -- and their babies -- did so for some "reasons" other than inability to have an abortion. I say "reasons" because suicide is irrational. You can't make a rational trade-off with a suicidally depressed woman that "OK if I kill the baby, will you desist from killing yourself?"

One of the cvnts asserted that there's a small risk to a mother in having a baby. She didn't say how many Irish women died in childbirth in the last three years. Probably not too many. She didn't say how many wanted an abortion, and weren't allowed, and then died in childbirth. Probably none. She didn't say whether that risk was less than the risk of having an abortion. Fact is, abortion is riskier than birth. Of course, we all know the risk to the child if the mother has an abortion. The 100% chance of death of the child is far worse than the worst-case scenarios to the mother for almost any complication to pregnancy. Anyone who can do the simplest arithmetic can figure out that abortion kills more lives than it could ever possibly save.

The media's calling this "the suicide test" for abortion. Irish abortionists want California-style laws that permit abortion on demand, at any time including after live birth, on the say-so of the doctor that the woman might feel bad if she didn't abort. "OK Princess. I'm gonna kill someone now so you can feel better about yourself. And charge the government for doing it."

If a woman is so fvcked in the head that she talks about killing her baby, that means there's a high risk that someone's going to die. One life is no better or worse than another. So why let a suicidal woman or a homicidal abortionist decide that one life is more valuable to save than another? Crazy people are not responsible to make life-and-death decisions. My solution is simple. Kill the mother and save the child.

While we're at it, inject potassium in the skulls of abortionists, and before they go unconscious, slice up their abdomens with curved knives.

 

[Omerta]

Yeah, the kid will probably turn out to be a productive member or society in that scenario...

 

[Down Low]

Yeah, the kid will probably turn out to be a productive member or society in that scenario...

Couldn't be any worse than the serial killing tramps who have ten abortions, or the serial killing abortionists who commit thousands of abortions. How do their abortions build strong relationships between man, woman, and child? How does abortion build strong families and strong societies?

The kid didn't do anything wrong. Why punish him?

Death penalty if your mom's a slvt. Some "productive society."

The woman exercised her freedom to choose when she spread her legs. All I'm saying is that with freedom comes responsibility.

 

[Omerta]

Couldn't be any worse than the serial killing tramps who have ten abortions, or the serial killing abortionists who commit thousands of abortions. How do their abortions build strong relationships between man, woman, and child? How does abortion build strong families and strong societies?

The kid didn't do anything wrong. Why punish him?

Death penalty if your mom's a slvt. Some "productive society."

The woman exercised her freedom to choose when she spread her legs. All I'm saying is that with freedom comes responsibility.

Reduce the crime rate...

Doesn't exactly sound like she has a man standing by to help her raise the child, although I'm extrapolating that from your post and common sense... Its a mile long debate of whether to consider a fetus a child which I really have no interest getting into. I'm all for reducing the welfare state... were not talking about sparta'ing babies off cliffs here if they don't look ideal. Rebuilding the nuclear family doesn't start with that battle.

 

[Down Low]

Reduce the crime rate...

Doesn't exactly sound like she has a man standing by to help her raise the child, although I'm extrapolating that from your post and common sense...

Divorce, contraception, abortion, and anti-man family courts are creations of law. Change the law, and change social behavior. Reducing slvttery will reduce the absolute number and relative percent of children raised by single mothers. Restoring the consequences for women mistreating men (such as by slvtting around or killing their babies in uterus) will greatly reduce the magnitude of the problem of absent fathers.

Its a mile long debate of whether to consider a fetus a child which I really have no interest getting into.

Same here. The question has always been what the community should do when individual persons' behavior is to the detriment of themselves and others. That forces the rest of us to think and act for the benefit of persons who don't appreciate it. It's thankless and unfair as hell, but that's how it is. I don't want to act for the benefit of slvts and abortionists who enable slvttery.

 

[backseatjuan]

I think the whole abortions issue is pretty easy.

#1 Abortion can be done prior to X weeks after start.

#2 Abortion can be done if health risks are low.

#3 Every woman should know that abortion can prevent them to have children for the rest of their lives.


If they want to do abortion, let them do it. But it is their risk, because there is a possibility of not being able to have children.

 

[twentee]

****ing hipocrites! U wont do a ****ing THING to help that kid or the mother after she HAS the kid, so wtf do you care if it's born or not, hmm? Powermad wannabe nazis! Also, you all think every woman should put out for you, but if she does this, of COURSE she's a "slut". Up yours.

 

[alphamailman]

****ing hipocrites! U wont do a ****ing THING to help that kid or the mother after she HAS the kid, so wtf do you care if it's born or not, hmm? Powermad wannabe nazis! Also, you all think every woman should put out for you, but if she does this, of COURSE she's a "slut". Up yours.

Nigga what dafuq are you going on about?

 

[twentee]

i am no man's "nigga", so **** you. if you can't read, that's not my problem, either.

 

[Down Low]

****ing hipocrites! U wont do a ****ing THING to help that kid or the mother after she HAS the kid, so wtf do you care if it's born or not, hmm? Powermad wannabe nazis! Also, you all think every woman should put out for you, but if she does this, of COURSE she's a "slut". Up yours.

You're begging the question. How did any particular pregnant woman get to the point where the rest of us are asked "to help that kid or the mother?" Clearly, that particular pregnant woman separated herself from the father. You're asserting that it's good for society if millions of pregnant women "liberate" themselves from the fathers. Or that it's inevitable, or something along those lines. But instead of starting at the beginning, and making some sort of reasoning for liberal liberationism, you jump to the conclusion that abortion/welfare is the only way to go.

Even worse, you use name-calling instead of reasoning.

The stupidest part of your reply is that you pretend you don't know what "slvt" means. But of course, you know full well, don't you.

 

[JusticeRaile]

Personally, I am not a fan of ABORTION and I will stand on this side.

 

[betheman]

Abortion is another control mechanism for women, they were given the pill, condoms, injections and now there are very few valid reasons for aborting a baby.
were there is risk of life to the mother, abortion is valid but there are womne who have refused cnacer treatment in order for the bay to suvive, knowing full well she is likely to die soon after as a result of not having that treatment.
some anti depressants can have adverse effects on babies in the womb and later when born, passed on through breast milk.
in this case, it appears to me, 2 suicides are being used to promote abortion in the republic of Ireland. many any women are on anti depressants, in the UK over 1500 women committed suicide in 2011, some people will kill themselves, when a woman who is pregnant and is anti depressant medication, this should be, and usually is, reviewed and monitored more carefully

 

[Down Low]

Here's an excellent example of how women can't think logically and can't do the simplest arithmetic:

Roe v Wade at 40: if the law was settled in 1973, the controversy is anything but

The other enduring paradox of Roe is a statistical one: if it is true that approximately one woman in three will have an abortion in her lifetime, how can it be the case that – according to polling by the Pew Research Center – 52% of Americans say abortion should be only be legal under certain circumstances, with 20% wanting it outlawed in all cases. The data overwhelmingly show that Americans commonly avail themselves of legal abortion, yet also oppose it. And public opinion has changed almost not at all in the 40 years since Roe.

72% want abortion restricted or even outlawed. Only 28% support abortion on demand. But 33% of women have abortions. How is this possible?

Well duh! 33% of women = 16% of the population. Clearly, that 5% "paradoxical" difference consists of the fathers whose children were aborted over their objections. Is this really so hard to figure out?

But . . . 5 out of 16 is a pretty substantial proportion, isn't it? That's 31%. Roughly one-third of the men involved did not agree to their children being aborted.

I want to repeat this, so it's clear what we're talking about. Out of every million abortions, more than 300,000 men didn't want it to happen -- they wanted the children. Abortion without the consent of the father is a massive infringement on the "freedom of choice" and "private sphere" of the man.

I'm not surprised that a feminist hag saw the numbers as a paradox. And that she twisted the problem of conflicting percentages into chick-think for saying one thing but doing another. And that feminists are backing off big time from the "private sphere" main argument of Roe v. Wade.

Here's another media b1tch who at least gets the basic concept:

...she and her husband were sitting together in a clinic, waiting to terminate a pregnancy... they were — birth control’s statistical anomaly. They went to their appointment together.