Abortion

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I never "failed miserably" in any debate with you.

We came to a stand-still due to semantics.

We both have different defintions of "life", "human", and "murder".

No, that is exactly why you left the thread. You couldn't handle the fact that you don't get an opinion on what murder is. There are factual and specific definitions and you try applying said word to an act that it is not applicable to. That's why you got turfed out of the debate. It's not my opinion that abortion isn't murder, it's fact.

You rely on anything you believe and ignore fact.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
As last I recalled, you had compared a human fetus to a bus "on the road" to a store, meaning that although it was on its way, it was not at the store yet(i.e., not yet human life worth protecting), and I said that just becuase it was on its way, was not a justification to "blow it off the road", we both had a good chuckle, and that was it.

I didn't come up with the bus analogy, you did. I never come up with analogy after analogy if the answer is simple and concise.

A foetus can't be something if it has to BECOME something. Ergo, it can't be human being if it's "going to be one", in both your words and the words of Quiero. You can't have it both ways, and since we know that it is a foetus that if left unchecked, would become a human being, we can clearly see that it presently ISN'T one. Good stuff.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Refresh my memory, because other than a "good riddance" when I made my now seemingly-futile attempt at a final post when I had said my peace, you didn't win some great victory in any debate.

I didn't claim victory, I just claimed you failed miserably, which you did. You always do.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Killing a human baby is a crime, specifically murder. (technically infantcide, but you get the point.)

Then call it infanticide, call it what it is.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Killing a human fetus that is 1 week from birth is no different. (you are smart enough to know that the uterus is not some "yellow brick road" that magically transforms a fetus to a human being at birth, rather it is a simple tunnel that brings the baby from the womb to here. Its a transportation device, nothing more.)

It is totally different, why are you trying to say it isn't? One instance is the killing of a newborn human being, the other is the killing of an unborn human foetus (Not being). They are two different cases. The scenarios, like it or not, are different.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
The baby is just as much a sentient human being with a right to live as is a fetus 1 week from birth.

It's not a human being, it's a human foetus until it's born, only then does it become a human being. That's the factual, technical truth of it. You don't seem to like being technical as it damages your argument, but I do, because I like using facts instead of ignorant prejudice.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Or one month from birth.

Or 9 months from birth...wait a minute, this is getting stupid! You are saying two different stages are the same thing. Stop being so stupid, they are scientifically different. That's like saying cake mix is a cake. It's not is it?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
And comparing it to a dog, a dead body, a human heart, skin/hair/nail cells is all irrelevant bullshit since it is a human life in development, and none of the above that we are talking about.

No, it's a foetus in development that, if born, will have a human life. It doesn't even have a life of its own when its born, let alone when it's actually in the womb being kept alive. You are butchering and abusing the word "life".

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Add to that the new scientific advances in liquid ventalation (see seperate thread http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t412420.html ) that allow babies born as young as 5 months old to develop outside the womb and grow into 100% normal, happy, fully-functioning little girls that run animal rescue websites.....

Or fully functioning murderers that run killing orgies. Why are you resorting to the piss-poor argument of what could be? Anything could be, so why don't we just concentrate on what it is at the time of abortion? Answer; A foetus. Not a human life, not a human being, a foetus that is being kept alive by an actual human.

Fact.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
And your logic for pre-meditated killing of humans based on age and residence is growing thin indeed.
🤘

Bye then.

-AC

I think what so many people on the anti-abortion, pro-life side of the argument have to realize that it's impossible to compare the use of the day after pill or early/mid term abortion as the categorical termination of a conscious human being. A clump of cells isn't doing much except developing and growing. It's the same thing a cluster of cancer cells does. But you don't see any problem with cutting out cancer or treating it. Maybe those cancerous tumors that begin to develop body parts, and teeth and hair should be allowed to fester since it's on it's way to having human characteristics.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, that is exactly why you left the thread. You couldn't handle the fact that you don't get an opinion on what murder is. There are factual and specific definitions and you try applying said word to an act that it is not applicable to. That's why you got turfed out of the debate. It's not my opinion that abortion isn't murder, it's fact.

You rely on anything you believe and ignore fact.

That's nice, I liked that one. Not enough action in it though. Tell me the one about the princess and the dragon.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

I didn't come up with the bus analogy, you did. I never come up with analogy after analogy if the answer is simple and concise.

A foetus can't be something if it has to BECOME something. Ergo, it can't be human being if it's "going to be one", in both your words and the words of Quiero. You can't have it both ways, and since we know that it is a foetus that if left unchecked, would become a human being, we can clearly see that it presently ISN'T one. Good stuff.

-AC

1.)

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

It's on the path to life at conception. Path to...path...to.

I might go get on a bus to go shopping. As soon as I step on the bus, am I as good as at the store just because I'm on my way? No.

Apparantly never heard of contraception failing. So let me be the first to enlighten you:

Contraception can fail.

There we go.

You say fin, I say flipper. Flipping. Flimsy. Y-your debates.

(If you know it's not finished, I would recommend not saying fin)

-AC

2.) Sure its a human being, just an earlier stage, and not known by the techical term of "newborn."

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

I didn't claim victory, I just claimed you failed miserably, which you did. You always do.

You have a good imagination, I'll give you that.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Then call it infanticide, call it what it is.

-AC

Infaticide: "The act of killing an infant." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=infanticide

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

It is totally different, why are you trying to say it isn't? One instance is the killing of a newborn human being, the other is the killing of an unborn human foetus (Not being). They are two different cases. The scenarios, like it or not, are different.

-AC

More specifically, when does it come into being?

Through the magical birth canal? Is that your measure of what human life is or isn't worth protecting?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's not a human being, it's a human foetus until it's born, only then does it become a human being. That's the factual, technical truth of it. You don't seem to like being technical as it damages your argument, but I do, because I like using facts instead of ignorant prejudice.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Or 9 months from birth...wait a minute, this is getting stupid! You are saying two different stages are the same thing. Stop being so stupid, they are scientifically different. That's like saying cake mix is a cake. It's not is it?

-AC

Cake mix? You're shitting me right?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

No, it's a foetus in development that, if born, will have a human life. It doesn't even have a life of its own when its born, let alone when it's actually in the womb being kept alive. You are butchering and abusing the word "life".

-AC

I'm butchering the word life no more than you, with your mumbo-jumbo about "Its human, a human fetus, but not a human being. It's alive, it doesn't have a life."

Life: "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
The characteristic state or condition of a living organism. "

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/life

I believe a fetus fits the bill for life, and being human by biology, is a human life.

And don't revert to "a fetus isn't even human", becasue you yourself has said it was:

It's a cell that in time will, in left untouched, become a human at the end of the eighth week. It's still just a cell. JUST a cell.

Nothing human about it, you are attaching the word human just because that's the species it was conceived by. This is irrelevant. It's not a human, we both know this.

Let's move on.

-AC

Even in that one you contradict yourself. You say its a cell, a zygote, until week 8, then human. Then you say its not a human.

How is it that you expect me or anyone else to take you seriously?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Or fully functioning murderers that run killing orgies. Why are you resorting to the piss-poor argument of what could be? Anything could be, so why don't we just concentrate on what it is at the time of abortion? Answer; A foetus. Not a human life, not a human being, a foetus that is being kept alive by an actual human.

Fact.

-AC

More posts that don't line up with what you have posted before.

You're grasping here, you don't have any "facts" on your side

Want some real FACTS?

"Person" is defined in our dictionary in 14 different ways. Yellowstone Park is a person. So is General Motors. So are you. But the Supreme Court of the U.S. in 1857 ruled that black people were not persons, and in 1973 that unborn people were not persons. You answer this question by first inquiring what the questioner means by "a person."

Did Dr. A. Liley, the "Father of Fetology," think the tiny being was human?

Dr. A. Liley, who did the first fetal blood transfusion in the womb, said that seven days after fertilization: ". . . the young individual, in command of his environment and destiny with a tenacious purpose, implants in the spongy lining and with a display of physiological power, suppresses his mothers menstrual period. This is his home for the next 270 days and to make it habitable, the embryo develops a placenta and a protective capsule of fluid for himself. He also solves, single-handed, the homograft problem, that dazzling feat by which foetus and mother, although immunological foreigners who could not exchange skin grafts nor safely receive blood from each other, never the less tolerate each other in parabiosis for nine months.

"We know that he moves with a delightful easy grace in his buoyant world, that foetal comfort deter-mines foetal position. He is responsive to pain and touch and cold and sound and light. He drinks his amniotic fluid, more if it is artificially sweetened, less it if is given an unpleasant taste. He gets hiccups and sucks his thumb. He wakes and sleeps. He gets bored with repetitive signals but can be taught to be alerted by a first signal for a second different one. And, finally, he determines his birthday, for unquestionably, the onset of labour is a unilateral decision of the foetus.

"This, then, is the foetus we know and, indeed, we each once were. This is the foetus we look after in modern obstetrics, the same baby we are caring for be-fore and after birth, who before birth can be ill and need diagnosis and treatment just like any other patient." A. Liley, "A Case Against Abortion," Liberal Studies, Whitcombe & Tombs, Ltd., 1971

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Bye then.

-AC

Originally posted by sithsaber408
"Person" is defined in our dictionary in 14 different ways. Yellowstone Park is a person. So is General Motors. So are you. But the Supreme Court of the U.S. in 1857 ruled that black people were not persons, and in 1973 that unborn people were not persons. You answer this question by first inquiring what the questioner means by "a person."

You have just proved my point for me. Thank you kind sir 😄

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Did Dr. A. Liley, the "Father of Fetology," think the tiny being was human?

Dr. A. Liley, who did the first fetal blood transfusion in the womb, said that seven days after fertilization: ". . . the young individual, in command of his environment and destiny with a tenacious purpose, implants in the spongy lining and with a display of physiological power, suppresses his mothers menstrual period. This is his home for the next 270 days and to make it habitable, the embryo develops a placenta and a protective capsule of fluid for himself. He also solves, single-handed, the homograft problem, that dazzling feat by which foetus and mother, although immunological foreigners who could not exchange skin grafts nor safely receive blood from each other, never the less tolerate each other in parabiosis for nine months.

"We know that he moves with a delightful easy grace in his buoyant world, that foetal comfort deter-mines foetal position. He is responsive to pain and touch and cold and sound and light. He drinks his amniotic fluid, more if it is artificially sweetened, less it if is given an unpleasant taste. He gets hiccups and sucks his thumb. He wakes and sleeps. He gets bored with repetitive signals but can be taught to be alerted by a first signal for a second different one. And, finally, he determines his birthday, for unquestionably, the onset of labour is a unilateral decision of the foetus.

"This, then, is the foetus we know and, indeed, we each once were. This is the foetus we look after in modern obstetrics, the same baby we are caring for be-fore and after birth, who before birth can be ill and need diagnosis and treatment just like any other patient." A. Liley, "A Case Against Abortion," Liberal Studies, Whitcombe & Tombs, Ltd., 1971blow

And you're comparing the research of the 70s to the research of today? Clearly, this guy is speaking more out of his own opinion than actual scientific fact. This proves nothing.

Originally posted by Phoenix2001

And you're comparing the research of the 70s to the research of today? Clearly, this guy is speaking more out of his own opinion than actual scientific fact. This proves nothing.

Why not?

Asking the Dr. who performed the first fetal blood transfusion in the womb, who recorded his experience of the human fetus after it was 7 days old, to describe the characteristics of a human fetus is certainly important in this debate,.....

as is the fact that no modern fetal blood transfusions have refuted his claims.

His findings are pure scientific facts, the only OPINIONS at work here are yours.

If you have no further thoughts than to point and cry, and say "thats old!", kindly shut up.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Why not?

Asking the Dr. who performed the first fetal blood transfusion in the womb, who recorded his experience of the human fetus after it was 7 days old, to describe the characteristics of a human fetus is certainly important in this debate,.....

as is the fact that no modern fetal blood transfusions have refuted his claims.

If you have no further point than to point and cry, and say "that's old", kindly shut up.

Wait a minute, I thought that we were trying to prove that the foetus was actually 'human.' You're going no where with this crap. All what you posted is only saying what we are in a women's womb from micro ogranisms to macro. If you cannot prove the point then stfu.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
That's nice, I liked that one. Not enough action in it though. Tell me the one about the princess and the dragon.

Oh yeah, implicating a story has been told. Ok I'll tell you one, stop me if you've heard it before.

In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth...then Adam and Eve...their sons were...oh wait.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Sure its a human being, just an earlier stage, and not known by the techical term of "newborn."

It's not a human being, though. Human being is the last stage of the development, post-child birth. What part of that are you missing?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
You have a good imagination, I'll give you that.

Sure I do Mr. "My dad lost his disease by marching with christians".

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Infaticide: "The act of killing an infant." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=infanticide

It doesn't say "murder" there anywhere, thus my point.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
What makes a human fetus distinguishable from a human "being"?

Besides the possession of independent thought, consciousness, living independence, motor skills and a myriad of other things? Not much.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
More specifically, when does it come into being?

Birth. Not conception, as I have factually proven to the likes of Whob.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Through the magical birth canal? Is that your measure of what human life is or isn't worth protecting? Oh I see, you actually do think that. Too bad all the countries that already outlaw 3rd trimester/partial-birth abortion don't agree with you. No, I'm saying that its an earlier stage of the same life.

Lots of countries have laws that I don't it doesn't mean I'm wrong or they are right. South Dakota were not right in what they did, or is that how you measure right and wrong? If the government did it, it's right.

It's not in possession of a LIFE yet. It's abuse of the word, you see. Alive doesn't mean in possession of a sentient life or consciousness. A tree is alive, technically it's life, but does it actually have a life in the sense of what we know? No. Neither does a foetus.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Cake mix? You're shitting me right? So......... by you're logic helpless babies after birth and maybe 3 or 4 year olds are up for grabs too?

It's none of my business what a mother does with her child, but the point we are discussing here is abortion, IE: What happens to the baby when it's inside of the womb. So why are you, Quiero and others dwelling on what it could be, what it "will" become and shit like that? It's irrelevant. It's a foetus at the time of ANY abortion, so therefore lets call it a foetus and stop treating it as though it's equal to us.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I'm butchering the word life no more than you, with your mumbo-jumbo about "Its human, a human fetus, but not a human being. It's alive, it doesn't have a life."

That's true, though. It doesn't have any quality of life, it has no ability to live a life. It's just living.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Life: "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
The characteristic state or condition of a living organism. "

Yeah, that's one of 12 definitions, many of which apply to what I am saying. Such as "Human existence: Everyday life, real life.".

Nobody here is denying the foetus is alive or that it's of human origin, but the fact is, it's not equal to human beings, it cannot survive on its own, it is the properly of the woman who has created it and it has no quality of life.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I believe a fetus fits the bill for life, and being human by biology, is a human life.

It's of human origin, yes. If you are trying to tell me that it has an existence equal to the likes of me or you, then I laugh.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
And don't revert to "a fetus isn't even human", becasue you yourself has said it was:

It's a cell that in time will, in left untouched, become a human at the end of the eighth week. It's still just a cell. JUST a cell.

Not a human being though.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Even in that one you contradict yourself. You say its a cell, a zygote, until week 8, then human. Then you say its not a human.

How is it that you expect me or anyone else to take you seriously?

I was addressing a zygote, the first was addressing a foetus. A foetus is of human origin, it can be considered a human foetus, but it's not a human being and has no human life.

Get it right.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
You're grasping here, you don't have any "facts" on your side

I do. The fact that at conception there is no human life, the fact that a foetus is not a human being (as that's what we are, it's not equal to us), the fact that is doesn't have an actual life, it's just living. Unless you've seen foetuses out shopping and visiting Starbucks?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Want some real FACTS?

Oh, go on then.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
"Person" is defined in our dictionary in 14 different ways. Yellowstone Park is a person. So is General Motors. So are you. But the Supreme Court of the U.S. in 1857 ruled that black people were not persons, and in 1973 that unborn people were not persons. You answer this question by first inquiring what the questioner means by "a person."

Did Dr. A. Liley, the "Father of Fetology," think the tiny being was human?

Dr. A. Liley, who did the first fetal blood transfusion in the womb, said that seven days after fertilization: ". . . the young individual, in command of his environment and destiny with a tenacious purpose, implants in the spongy lining and with a display of physiological power, suppresses his mothers menstrual period. This is his home for the next 270 days and to make it habitable, the embryo develops a placenta and a protective capsule of fluid for himself. He also solves, single-handed, the homograft problem, that dazzling feat by which foetus and mother, although immunological foreigners who could not exchange skin grafts nor safely receive blood from each other, never the less tolerate each other in parabiosis for nine months.

"We know that he moves with a delightful easy grace in his buoyant world, that foetal comfort deter-mines foetal position. He is responsive to pain and touch and cold and sound and light. He drinks his amniotic fluid, more if it is artificially sweetened, less it if is given an unpleasant taste. He gets hiccups and sucks his thumb. He wakes and sleeps. He gets bored with repetitive signals but can be taught to be alerted by a first signal for a second different one. And, finally, he determines his birthday, for unquestionably, the onset of labour is a unilateral decision of the foetus.

"This, then, is the foetus we know and, indeed, we each once were. This is the foetus we look after in modern obstetrics, the same baby we are caring for be-fore and after birth, who before birth can be ill and need diagnosis and treatment just like any other patient." A. Liley, "A Case Against Abortion," Liberal Studies, Whitcombe & Tombs, Ltd., 1971

See ya.blow

1971? No wonder you're living in the dark ages. In 2006 it's different now, we have science and facts.

That hiccup/sucking thumb/waking and sleeping argument is bs. People do things in their sleep all the time that they don't know about. The foetus isn't floating there thinking "*Hiccup* Damn, shouldn't have had that last bit of ambiotic fluid.".

Those aren't facts that prove anything to aid you. Mostly opinions. I actually have scientific fact that proves there is no human life and conception, where is your willingness to accept that?

-AC

all dis sh88t bout the a unveleped human bean fuly human is
bullsh88t.

all reel humans beans fall into 3 categories...

1. white
b healthy
d white males
e white females

only white peeple who take care of their own r human.
sh88t..

now you all tell me boys..wens the last time ya saw a mexican, a cripple, or a black livin on tehre own? sh8888888ttt....our countries being overrun by blacks, da chicos, an turban boys an y'all wanna make it eassuer 4 these peeple to polute our gene pool.

our countries goin down..an killin da blacks, chicos, an turban boys be4 their born is the only way were goin to cleen out the gene pool..an get this coury back too way it was before we let the negroes and the spics an jews take over...

wake up white people!!!

Originally posted by Redneck Boy
all dis sh88t bout the a unveleped human bean fuly human is
bullsh88t.

all reel humans beans fall into 3 categories...

1. white
b healthy
d white males
e white females

only white peeple who take care of their own r human.
sh88t..

now you all tell me boys..wens the last time ya saw a mexican, a cripple, or a black livin on tehre own? sh8888888ttt....our countries being overrun by blacks, da chicos, an turban boys an y'all wanna make it eassuer 4 these peeple to polute our gene pool.

our countries goin down..an killin da blacks, chicos, an turban boys be4 their born is the only way were goin to cleen out the gene pool..an get this coury back too way it was before we let the negroes and the spics an jews take over...

wake up white people!!!

😐

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
😐

I just say let the punishment fit the crime.

Originally posted by Alliance
I just say let the punishment fit the crime.

Blacks genetically less intelligent than whites according to Wall Street Journal

Three months ago I wrote about Dr. Bruce Lan’s research into brain genes and evolution. Based upon my reading of the NY Times article, which apparently put a PC spin on things, I concluded that Dr. Lahn’s research indicated that there are genetic differences between the races which affect brain function.

On the front page of yesterday’s Wall Street Journal is an article which talks about the issue directly. Below is an excerpt in which I highlight the important conclusion:

In recent years, Dr. Lahn has become interested in why the human brain is so large and complex. Although humans and chimpanzees share about 96% of their DNA, human brains are about four times larger. Even today, researchers can find a correlation, on average, between people's brain size and their IQ.

Dr. Lahn's group zeroed in on the role of two genes, called ASPM and microcephalin, that are known to have a role in brain size. Humans with defective copies of either gene are born with brains only about one-third the normal size.

Studying DNA from several species, the Chicago team found that, over millions of years, the genes had undergone more rapid change in monkeys, apes and humans than in other animals. Their next step was to determine if evolution had continued in modern humans. Dr. Lahn's graduate students began decoding DNA from 1,184 people belonging to 59 groups from around the world, including Bedouins, Pima Indians and French-speaking Basques.

The data showed that evolution had continued in recent millennia. A statistical analysis of DNA patterns suggested that new mutations in each of the two brain-related genes had spread quickly through some human populations. Evidently, these mutations were advantageous among those populations -- just as the genetic variant promoting milk digestion was advantageous to early Europeans. Dr. Lahn and his team further observed that the new mutations are found most frequently outside of Africa. What the data didn't say was how the mutations were advantageous. Perhaps the genes play a role outside of the brain or affect a brain function that has nothing to do with intelligence.

While acknowledging that the evidence doesn't permit a firm conclusion, Dr. Lahn favors the idea that the advantage conferred by the mutations was a bigger and smarter brain. He found ways to suggest that in his papers. One mutation, which according to his estimates arose some 40,000 years ago, coincided with the first art found in caves, the paper observed. The other mutation, present mostly in people from the Middle East and Europe, and estimated to be 5,800 years old, coincided with the "development of cities and written language."

That suggested brain evolution might have occurred in tandem with important cultural changes. Yet because neither variant is common in sub-Saharan Africa, there was another potential implication: Some groups had been left out.

Unfortunately, because of political correctness, it seems that Dr. Lahn has to stop doing his brain research. “Dr. Lahn stands by his work but says that because of the controversy he is moving into other projects.”

This is further evidence that the research does indeed show that blacks are less intelligent than whites. If the research confirmed the politically correct but apparently scientifically incorrect notion that there is no genetic difference in intelligence between the races, then there would be no need for him to stop doing his brain research.

even science say we smarter than the blacks, chicos, an the jews..we gotta take out all dem peeple if we want to keep our race alive...abortion help us evolve over these peeple, an y'all want to take it away...

Wake up white peeple!!!

Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions.

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion

On average, 1,452 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.

This incidence of abortion has resulted in a tremendous loss of life. It has been estimated that since 1973 Black women have had about 10 million abortions. Michael Novak had calculated "Since the number of current living Blacks (in the U.S.) is 31 million, the missing 10 million represents an enormous loss, for without abortion, America's Black community would now number 41 million persons. It would be 35 percent larger than it is. Abortion has swept through the Black community like a scythe, cutting down every fourth member."

thumbup

Several years ago, when 17,000 aborted babies were found in a dumpster outside a pathology laboratory in Los, Angeles, California, some 12-15,000 were observed to be black."

--Erma Clardy Craven (deceased)
Social Worker and Civil Rights Leader

thumbup1

You're either a whob sock or a bigoted moron. Oh wait that's not really an either/or. No one's interested in your drivel, go away.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
You're either a whob sock or a bigoted moron. Oh wait that's not really an either/or. No one's interested in your drivel, go away.

boy..ya eva heard of freedooom of speech? sh88tt....

Abortion Causing 'Black Genocide,' Activists Say
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
February 07, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - During America's commemoration of Black History Month, some pro-life activists are charging that legalized abortion has led to a "black genocide" of more than 14 million unborn African-American babies. They condemn, in particular, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, whose president Gloria Feldt announced last week that she's resigning.

"For every five African-American women who get pregnant, three have an abortion," Clenard Childress Jr., director of the Northeast Chapter of the Life Education And Resource Network, told the Cybercast News Service. "This is a horrific injustice to women, and it's decimating our communities."

Childress runs the BlackGenocide.org website, which quotes a number of disturbing statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

-- Since 1973, more than twice as many blacks have died from abortion than from heart disease, cancer, accidents, violent crimes and AIDS combined;

-- Blacks make up about 12 percent of the population in the United States but account for 32 percent of the abortions; and

-- About 1,450 black infants are aborted every day in this country.

👆

THE WAR HAS BEGUN..WAKE UP WHITE PEEPLE!!!

ah, the white supremacist scumbag. i see whob has chosen a more honest persona now.

Originally posted by PVS
[B]ah, the white supremacist scumbag.

i only pro choice for minorties..not 4 whites...i'm pro life for da white people..

so answer me dis boy..how am i a white supremicist if I love my peeple..and if i agree wit given da blacks, jews, and spics more rights to choose to kill dere unborn children..than i do wit my own peeple?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
You're either a whob sock or a bigoted moron. Oh wait that's not really an either/or. No one's interested in your drivel, go away.

none of the above. i am an a white american male who is proud of my peeple...and am bout giving the minorities more chooices.

I don't support the rite 4 white peeple shouldn't kill there own unborn
but i do support the right of a low income negrow women to take the life of her unborn child..if u think that makes me a bigot..so be it..

its common knowledge that the negro peeple can make babbies faster than a cokerspaniel in heat...you seen that movie planet of the apes?

well if a negrow woman's rite to kill he child is taken away..its goin to be hell 2 pay for everyone..specially white peeple..

WAKE UP WHITE PEEPLE!!!

ya thought y'all one the battle..but now ya loosin the war...