HOME | DD
t-writes-poems — a voice for the voiceless.
Published: 2009-01-22 11:23:18 +0000 UTC; Views: 5043; Favourites: 112; Downloads: 8
Redirect to original
Description
thirty-six years ago today...the case of roe v. wade changed america forever, ruling
the genocide of innocent preborn children as a
constitutional act.
since that day, over 50 million tiny, voiceless children
have been slaughtered in its name.
thirty-six years ago.
how is this still going on?
there is no pro-choice.
the baby has no choice in his or her death; why should
the mother? after all, aren't we all created equal?
and if a choice truly must be made, it should be made
before the point of conception. not after.
give them a voice.
overturn roe v. wade.
it's a child, not a choice.
credit...
pregnant woman silhouette: [link]
(c)
Related content
Comments: 290
And if you can justify your position on abortion without using religion as your crutch, I will give you a cookie the size of manhattan.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Alright. I'll use the same link as earlier because it's on hand. Not only does the Bible tell us life begins at conception, but science supports this fact: [link]
I want said humongous cookie plz. :<
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Also: that link is a tiny bit biased. No cookie for you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Actually, that's just a simplification given to students because otherwise it'd be too damn complex. It's been proven that there exist multiple cases of creatures classified as "alive" that lack one or more of those characteristics, and others (virii) that present some yet aren't "alive".
Note the name of the textbook given: "Basics of Biology". It's exactly that. Basics. A simplified, general observation that fits most cases and therefore works for most situations.
On another angle, I was taught that life as such begun past the 1st trimester, when the endoderm develops into a semi-functional nervous proto-system.
Just throwing that out there.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ohshi- it's anti.
leave out of mah argument for a minute, i has a point.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
*hands her a cookie shaped like a phallus*
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Also: I'm dissapointed to see a Dr Seuss quote used in such a way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm sorry you feel that way, but that quote is true in every instance and speaks volumes; it was no mistake.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That quote is directed towards racism. Dr Suess wrote for changes he wanted in the world: enviromental treatment, anti-war, end of racism... that book is about racism, not abortion.
Would you rather abortion be illegal and go back to the old ways, which was women doing it themselves with a coathanger?
At least now there are regulations.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Did you know that most abortions committed in America today are a result of racism and the eugenicist movement? Before abortions were legal, most people getting them were white, but it was legalized specifically to "purify" the races by eliminating the "lower races," namely blacks in America, whom had become a large minority since slavery ended.
I watched a video recently that exposes all the dirt on Planned Parenthood and its founder Margaret Sanger (of course, they're not the only ones performing abortions, but they are a major contributor). The movie's called "Maafa 21" [link] . You can go to their site, or look up some videos on YouTube.
If abortion was illegal again, there'd be a lot less dead babies, and the women foolish enough to try doing it themselves w/ a coat hanger would be pretty few and far between...and I doubt they'd try it a second time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That quote is NOT about racism - if it were, wouldn't it say "A person's a person, no matter what color?" or something along those lines? The quote was from Horton Hears A Who, a book/movie that could most certainly be paralleled to the pro-life movement.
And you think just because there are regulations, there aren't people out there doing it to themselves like that?
There are always going to be stupid women who go to unreasonable extremes like that. It's awful, but it's true. Those women need help, because they're not only killing their own baby, but they're hurting themselves.
But just because there are going to be women who seek dangerous means to bypass a law means we shouldn't have laws? Just because people break laws means we shouldn't have them? If we all thought that way, this country would be hell. That's kind of like saying because some illegal immigrants risk their lives to hop the border and get into America means we should just tear down the border and allow anyone into our country and not even know who's here and who isn't; just because some women will risk their own health to murder means we should just let any woman have her unborn child torn out of her and killed? I know that's a different matter entire, but hopefully that analogy better explains my point?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Actually, Horton Hears a Who is about anti-isolationism. Sorry.
I do agree that it's a wonderful metaphor for pro-life, but that wasn't Seuss's intention.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I know where the quote is from- the thing is, abortion wasn't a big deal when Dr Suess wrote the book- racism was. He was teaching children to appreciate everyone, and not think that the people of other skin colors were bad.
They're not killing a baby- it's not a baby yet.
We do have laws. Roe versus Wade established said laws.
I'm all for immigration, actually. We're all illegal immigrants, if you think about it. Only the Native Americans are true americans- that is, we did to them what people claim the immigrants from Mexico are doing to us. Actually, we did much worse to the Native Americans: we killed them, ripped them from their homes, used them to our advantage in warfare and then turned on them when the wars were over.
So, I find that a poor ananolgy.
Like I said, the "baby" is still a fetus- no more alive than your fingernails, or the eggs you eat for breakfast.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
IF it isn't alive, then how come we can hear a heart-beat when the mother goes in to the doctor's?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You say it's not a baby... fine it's a fetus. It's still LIVING. It's GONNA be a baby in a while, right? So, put yourself in his/her shoes. How would you feel? And obviously, in my opinion, having an abortion had on you HURTS. One type of abortion, not quite sure what is't called, they skick a needle into the childs hole in the SKULL, then SUCK THE BRAIN OUT SO THE SKULL COLAPSES, so then they can pull the child out. I, for one, call that murder.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Then why did he phrase it that way? It doesn't make sense in that context. I mean, Horton could hear these people that no one else believes they're really there. Pro-lifers are speaking out for the unborn children that some think aren't even people. But, hey, it's a message of equality, so I guess it could go either way, to racism or abortion. Because all people are "CREATED EQUAL," right?
That's definitely not what I was getting at, and I don't feel like getting into the whole illegal immigration debate. I wasn't referring to back then, I was... oh, nevermind. I guess you didn't get my point correctly. But it still stands - just because people are going to find their way around laws doesn't mean we shouldn't have them. And Roe v. Wade doesn't do a damned thing but open up possibilities for murder across the board.
The baby is life, the baby is a human being from the point of conception.
And my fingernails aren't alive - they're dead cells. Babies aren't dead cells. And I don't eat breakfast and hate eggs. Heh.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Abortion wasn't an issue when the book was written: you'll have noticed that Horton was an elephant, not a human. It's a metaphor.
Then tighten the laws for Roe v. Wade. First trimester and the baby isn't alive.
Do you eat meat? Support the death penalty? Both are technically murder. A baby doesn't think until it is two. Until then, it has the same thought level as a chicken. Or a cow. During the first trimester, it isn't alive- unless you're asking the bible. Science says otherwise.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Hey hey, vegetarian. You're still eating plants. They're ALIVE. Hypocritical much?
It is a natural thing for living things to eat other living things. If it wasn't, living things WOULD NOT EXIST.
It is NOT natural for living things to purposefully kill their children for no apparent resaon. If it was, living things WOULD NOT EXIST.
The reason the meat industry could be considered homicidal is not because it kills animals for food, but because it WASTES so much of the cow or other animal, whereas in the wild all of the dead animal will be used for something.
And saying "a baby doesn't think until it is two"...that's probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard come out of your mouth. Not only that, but you're contradicting yourself by saying "until then, it has the same thought level as a chicken." Thought level? That's thinking, I do believe. And if you're going to be so selfish as to think you're better than something simply because you are "smarter," then I'll say right out that you don't know anything at all. I'm sorry to be insulting, but such arrogance is disgusting. I'm sure my very intellegent UNDER TWO YEARS OLD little sister is smarter than you are.
And I doubt Ther supports the death penalty. I mean seriously, why would you think she would?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"Horton was an elephant, not a human. It's a metaphor."
Exactly. Elephants aren't racist, are they? You can take the quote as you will, as with any other quote anyone says.
And abortion has always been an issue, in every society, by the way. It didn't just pop up with Roe v. Wade.
The baby is alive during the first trimester, dear. And don't tell me to tighten the laws - I want them to. I want them to tighten them so no one is hurt or killed by them.
Yes, I eat meat. No, I don't support the death penalty except in extreme cases. Though I've never seen the death penalty argument as a legit one - after all, those people are horrible criminals. What did the baby do to deserve an equal fate?
And I'm asking the Bible and science - as I've said, they are one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, it wasn't. People just did them with coathangers and got on with their lives. It was not an issue like it is today. Back then, it was racism that was the major issue, along with desegregation.
I'm saying, as a compromise, to tighten the laws so your 93% of "I'm just stupid and got pregnant because of it" abortions stop happening- but the rest of the women have a choice.
Please do not call me dear. We are not dating, I do not know you. I find it to be insulting to use towards a stranger.
Actually, people claim the world began 1000 years ago or so, by the bible. Slightly more years than that, but still, only a couple thousand or so.
By science, the world started several million years ago.
Religion is what people want to believe, and I respect that. However, religion has no place in government or science.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
As long as it existed, there were supporters and opponents. The issue has certainly grown since Roe v. Wade, but it's always been there.
That "compromise" would be great progress - but still, all people should have an equal right to life, no matter how they were conceived.
And I apologize for calling you "dear," then. I tend to do that.
The Bible gives us time only in terms of God. And a day for God is much different than a day for humans. Maybe it was 1,000 years ago in God's time, and maybe that equals several million by our standards. Time is a hard thing to measure when you think about it.
Our country was built on non-specific religious principles - we're "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights" (which includes life, by the way.) Religion has a place in government. And science glorifies God and religion; even Einstein made the connection between the two.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The book was written before it was a big issue. Before the question of legality came up. Nobody really said much about it; it was done in the home with coathangers.
The bible was written by humans, thus, it doesn't have God's original pure perspective- it has the propaganda of humans. Books written by females were removed from the bible; it has been found that people that were actually female, when written about, were changed to men for the bible. Sexism abounds.
Actually, the Constitution says nothing about "our Creator". "Life" is in reference to the British killing people for opposing them, not abortion.
May I have proof of Einstein connecting the two?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah, I've found myself some proof. People DID speak up about it, and it was women's rights activists, like Susan B. Anthony. And that was back in the late 1800s. So yes. It has been an issue, and yes, people did care, even back then.
Sure, the Bible may be flawed in that sense, but perhaps that is the point. The Bible is still the word of God and God believes all his children are equal (even the unborn, whom He "knew in the womb") - it is humans that hinder this. It is humans that need to work towards this in order to achieve God's will.
I didn't say the Constitution did. That is a quote from the Declaration of Independence, which is still part of our country's founding and basis. "Life" is a statement that says all human beings should be given the right to life at conception, at creation.
My friend sent me a quote once, something like, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." I quite like that quote.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Susan B Anthony was pro-choice, I beleive, as was Emma Goldman. My point is, Dr Suess didn't give a crap. He was focusing on racism.
The idea is, other people don't have the same religion as you. They don't try (or if they do try, they don't succeed) to get the government to pass laws enforcing their religious beleifs on others.
Neither did the Declaration of Independence.
That's your interpretation, quite honestly.
That doesn't really mean much.
It could just be an observation about the arguments people have about science versus religion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, Susan B. Anthony was most certainly NOT pro-choice. She spoke out against abortion. I know that for a solid fact. And Emma Goldman was against abortion as well, as were all women's rights activists of that time. Look it up.
To me, this isn't only a matter of religion, is a matter of innocent people being slaughtered. And, if you really think about it, some of our laws are based in religion. After all, how do we figure murder is wrong? The Bible tells us so. Other religions believe one must kill to become a god of some sort. Wouldn't laws against murder therefore be pushing religion onto people?
Then how do you explain the "created equal" phrase?
That means a lot to me. Einstein knows religion and science can co-exist, and knows that one cannot exist without the other. I believe that as well.
Oh, and on an unrelated note, I figured I'd point out that you should really use your real account next time, Elizabeth, sweetie.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They were against using coathangers- using a doctor would be better.
Murder is imposing on another alive, human, born person's right to life.
The word created wasn't made by religion. Merely used by it.
I see.
I'm sorry?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No. They were against ABORTION. Susan B. Anthony called abortion "appalling" and referred to it as murder countless times in her publications. Emma Goldman declared herself that she was pro-life.
I see the word "born" nowhere in the definition of murder. It is the taking of another's life.
So? The Fathers of our country declared in those two words that life begins at creation, and therefore as does equality.
And I'm not that stupid.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm going to end this discussion, because you clearly beleive that I am someone else. I feel bad for this Elizabeth person, and hope I didn't get her into trouble.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Alright. Yes, stupid to cover it up when you figured out this is my side account, and I apologize (I'm not sure what I was thinking, exactly) but there are reasons that I used this:
1- mainly because, when I was given the link, it opened in explorer, which is the browser I use for this account so I do not need to log out of either of my accounts. (on that note, this account is used for reading, mostly. please let it be- I don't want many people seeing this)
and
2- because from experience, I have found that when we talk about touchy things over the internet, it leads ot a shouting match, I wanted to hear your actualy debate, so I made myself view the discussion as if I did not know you, because you were viewing it as if you did not know me. Your points were well said, and I comend you for that: however, I am still pro-choice, and probably will be for the a very long time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Heh. I don't have any use of parading around telling everyone this is your account.
And when have we ever talked about touchy subjects, much less had it lead to a "shouting match"? Meh, in any case, I would've debating like that to anyone, whether I knew them or not. But okay.
And I realize you're pro-choice, and I hope that one day you'll realize what that choice means. I can't really understand your side of the argument, but I do respect that you have an opinion.
So, thanks for the debate. I actually needed that to get my mind off other things. XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hitei academy, as much as I hate to bring it up. It taught me that not knowing the person you're talking to over the internet leads to more discussion, less arguing. We're more comfortable arguing with people we know than with strangers, because we are not the assholes of the internet.
I find that the debating helps me understand your side of the argument better. It might not convince me to your opinion, but it helps me understand why you believe what you do.
It was a good debate. Thank you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What about in cases where having the chils would kill the mother? Is that alright?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
ye. it is. It's to save a life so they don't both go!
And I'm prolife!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It's not alright, but I don't think there's anything we can currently do in that situation. That is the sole instance where abortion could be considered, however, I believe doctors need to put serious effort in to making sure both the mother and child get equal treatment before even considering that that is the only way. I know I personally wouldn't ever have an abortion, even if giving birth would put my life in danger; but I know that is a sensitive decision, and would be a hard one for me to make in any case, so I can't expect every woman to decide the same when her own health would be at stake.
However, that being said, statistics show that the woman's own physical health is a reason that accounts for only 3% of abortions in the U.S. - I'm assuming the instances where the mother's life is actually in danger is much less than that, even.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am against abortion when it's because someone was stupid, didn't use protection, and got pregnant.
In the case of rape, potential injury or death, the child would be unable to be cared for or born into an abusive home...it's a personal decision.
It's not my choice or place to judge whether or not someone else has an abortion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So you're against 93% of abortions. Great!
"The child would be unable to be cared for or born into an abusive home" - Nah. Adopt the baby out. And anyway, babies that are born to happy couples that wouldn't consider abortion sometimes can't be supported. I was born to a mother who could hardly care for the kid she had before, much less me. She neglected us. But I'm happy I'm alive, I'm happy my dad and grandparents got custody of me - and that's how an adoption works, pretty much. If the mother can't care for the baby, give the baby to someone who can. It's not THAT difficult. There are 2 million couples currently looking to adopt in America.
And I don't think rape is a justified reason for abortion, though. And, according to studies, neither do a majority of pregnant rape victims. (Note that rape only makes up 1% of reasons for women having an abortion.) Murdering an innocent third person will not "cure" the woman of what was done to her, it won't lessen the pain at all. As one rape victim who had an abortion said, "I still feel that I probably couldn't have loved that child conceived of rape, but there are so many people who would have loved that baby dearly. The man who raped me took a few moments of my life, but I took that innocent baby's entire life." Just read this page, it really solidified my stance on the matter: [link]
I believe it is our place to stand up for those that cannot speak for themselves, and stop the silent holocaust that we're currently allowing in this country.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
First off: adoption can lead to bad homes. Foster families sometimes became foster families just for the money they get.
Read "A Child Called It", and the sequels. These books show the horror of growing up in an abusive home, and the horrors that come with being in foster care.
The thing is, abortions are only allowed in the first trimester. This is before the fetus is even alive, by the scientific definition of life. It's little more than the cells in your nails. Do you cut your nails? It's the same removal of cells that an abortion essentially is.
While I personally would not get an abortion, I don't think it is our place to judge or make that choice for women- which is why Roe v. Wade should stay the way it is.
As for comparing abortion to the Holocaust- I don't have words for that. Abortion is nothing compared to the Holocaust.
Also, a question: if a woman miscarries, which has the same effect as an abortion, does that make the poor woman the mother of a dead baby?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I haven't read those books, but I've heard quite a lot about them. Abuse is awful, and I wish that no one had to deal with it, but abortion is not the cure for abuse. The cure for abuse is to punish the abusers. If a woman is abused by her husband, should that woman be killed so she won't have to go through the horrors?
Abortions are potentially allowed throughout all nine months of pregnancy. Roe v. Wade only defined that abortion is allowed in the first trimester and left the rest of the pregnancy up to state laws. Which is why the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was signed by Bush in 2003. Because some states were still and are still allowing abortion beyond that first trimester - Roe v. Wade doesn't touch the rest of the pregnancy at all.
And physicians, biologists, and other scientists actually agree that life begins at conception. There's an overwhelming agreement on that in biological and scientific writings. So that baby is much more than just a clump of cells. So yes, I do cut my nails and my hair and such. The only difference is that I'm not killing an innocent baby in the process of doing these things.
And abortion is nothing compared to the Holocaust? 11 million people were killed in the Holocaust. Abortion clinics have killed about 50 million children since Roe v. Wade. Don't mistake my point, I'm DEFINITELY not saying the Holocaust wasn't a big deal or is insignificant compared to abortion - it was a horrifying event in history. Which is why we shouldn't let it happen anymore. But the facts are that it is.
As for the miscarriage question, unfortunately, yes. The woman is a mother of a dead child. A child that is dead due to circumstances beyond her control, but still a child. I don't really understand your point in asking that, because it's not usually a woman's fault if she miscarries, therefore the child wasn't murdered, just died of... well, not natural causes, I guess, but if you understand what I'm trying to say... It's not her fault, but it is still a dead child.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then tighten the laws so that abortion isn't allowed past the first trimester.
I would like to see evidence of that. The bible states that life begins at conception, not science. I have multiple siblings involved in the sciences; none of them would back up that steatement.
I figured out an analogy to explain why I am pro-choice: in one of my favorite books, the author creates a character that is disgustingly violent. He rapes and murders people. Then, the character's free will is taken away: he must behave nicely.
The book's message is that having the choice between good and evil is more important that what you choose: while the character chooses evil, he still must have the right to choose. Without the choice, he becomes inhuman.
I beleive that clarifies it- if not, I'll explain further.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Science says nothing about life beginning after a few trimesters. Many scientific groups believe life begins as soon as the sperm fuses with the egg. The reason abortion is such a touchy topic is BECAUSE science has no definitive answer on when EXACTLY life TRUELY begins. At this point, it is something left to individual opinion, which tends to be, of course, based on the person's morals and religion.
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind," so says Albert Einstein. And don't think you can turn that quote around on me to say religion is being blind by ignoring the fact that the fetus isn't alive. Once again, science DOES NOT HAVE a definitive answer on that subject.
As for the A Clockwork Orange analogy, well, if you're going to say without abortion the woman can't make a choice, that's not completely true. They can always stab themself in the stomach. I believe that is sufficently and "disgustingly violent" enough for our dear character Alex, don't you agree?
Because why, when a pregnant woman is killed, is it considered two counts of murder?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Science says nothing about life beginning after a few trimesters. Many scientific groups believe life begins as soon as the sperm fuses with the egg. The reason abortion is such a touchy topic is BECAUSE science has no definitive answer on when EXACTLY life TRUELY begins. At this point, it is something left to individual opinion, which tends to be, of course, based on the person's morals and religion.
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind," so says Albert Einstein. And don't think you can turn that quote around on me to say religion is being blind by ignoring the fact that the fetus isn't alive. Once again, science DOES NOT HAVE a definitive answer on that subject.
As for the A Clockwork Orange analogy, well, if you're going to say without abortion the woman can't make a choice, that's not completely true. They can always stab themself in the stomach. I believe that is sufficently and "disgustingly violent" enough for our dear character Alex, don't you agree?
Because why, when a pregnant woman is killed, is it considered two counts of murder?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Why the first trimester when life begins at conception?
Some of your evidence: [link]
And yes, the Bible states that life begins at conception.I trust God more than I do science (science from human perspectives anyway), but the religion and science go hand-in-hand. Those who think God and science are two separate forces are deceiving themselves.
Then why don't we give all people the choice to rape and murder and steal? Let's abolish all our laws and let everyone "choose" how they live, if we're going to go by that standard.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
This is random, but I actually don't remember reading anywhere in the Bible that life begins at conception. Can you give me the verse?
And another thing, why did you choose to put pro woman in the picture, when that's actually the exact opposite of your belief?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Here's some verses and thoughts on the matter: [link]
And pro-woman is absolutely not the opposite of pro-life. The pro-"choice" movement tries to convince women that they are not strong enough to carry a child and need to destroy it in order to live a "normal" life; they also cover up the negative effects of abortion on women. The pro-life movement supports and cares about all human life - that includes the baby and the mother. For example, pro-lifers are responsible for crisis pregnancy centers that offer support and care to women faced with difficult pregnancies.
Look at it this way: when a woman is faced with a difficult pregnancy, a pro-choicer would be likely to suggest that the woman could not handle the pregnancy and should simply abort her baby. A pro-lifer would be likely to suggest she is strong enough to carry her child and may offer support for her. It's kind of like having someone who is severely depressed and having one person tell them that they can't handle their issues and have the freedom to choose to commit suicide, while another person tells them they can get through it and offers them various alternatives and support.
I'm not trying to make all pro-lifers sound wonderful and all pro-choicers sound horrible, because that's certainly not the case. I understand why pro-choicers would think some of the things they do, but the way they think is just so misguided and misinformed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Pro choicers let women know that they are more than human incubators, which is what people like you view them as. And as for your amazing verses, half of them don't have anything to do with abortion, but nice try. [link] Please, read what's on that site.
The funny part about this whole thing is that I'm actually Christian, but it's because of people like you that I actually cringe when people call me Christian, because then everybody thinks that I can't think for myself, which is what the majority of Christians can't do. I can actually think for myself, and I don't need a book to tell me what's right and wrong, because I can use my brain, which God gave me by the way, and I suggest that the whole pro life movement try that for once. Funny how you guys only support her until she has the baby, and then where does that innocent, wonderful, miraculous baby go? Oh, that's right, foster homes, if they are lucky. Nobody tells depressed people that they should commit suicide, but I support people who realize that they have control over there own bodies, and that means people who want to commit suicide too. Who am I to tell anyone what to do with themselves? Who are you to speak for God and be his activist? You are nobody, you are a sinner, and you have no authority over anyone else. I hate pro lifers, because you guys are sick, sadistic, and twisted people.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>