Jump to content

Recommended Posts

laugh.gif i think your mums a little overdue chaucerin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chauce needs to be aborted...late, late term. tongue.gif

Yes, my mother is 421 months pregnant.

This places her in the 140th trimester and may cause some legal issues.

As the fetus in this case, I will have my lawyers contact the Human Rights Commission of Canada.

ph34r.gif

Your situation is covered by a little unknown section of the Roe vs. Wade decsion and in most state and national requirements, including Canada's:

The Retroactive Abortion

A Retroactive Abortion shall be performed when the fetus has reached a point as to be curmudgeony, drooling and be seen as a swag-bellied pignut. There are no grounds for appeal.

Edited by Moo-cows with guns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chauce needs to be aborted...late, late term. tongue.gif

Yes, my mother is 421 months pregnant.

This places her in the 140th trimester and may cause some legal issues.

As the fetus in this case, I will have my lawyers contact the Human Rights Commission of Canada.

ph34r.gif

Your situation is covered by a little unknown section of the Roe vs. Wade decsion and in most state and national requirements, including Canada's:

The Retroactive Abortion

A Retroactive Abortion shall be performed when the fetus has reached a point as to be curmudgeony, drooling and be seen as a swag-bellied pignut. There are no grounds for appeal.

laugh.gif chauce, so how long have you been in your mum's tummy and how can you type?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ph34r.gif

She kicked the worthless lout out years ago; hence the term retroactive abortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ph34r.gif

She kicked the worthless lout out years ago; hence the term retroactive abortion.

We're still attached - my digestive system is fully formed, but I like getting the extra blood sugar.

As such, my mother has been retrofitted with a 450km umbilical tether made of space age polymers. She also eats more than any other 68 year-old woman in the history of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ph34r.gif

That explains much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ph34r.gif

This is news to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ph34r.gif

Pfft! You've been saying that since the day after the election.

You like my coffee too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ph34r.gif

Pfft! You've been saying that since the day after the election.

You like my coffee too much.

wallbash3np.gif coffee wallbash3np.gif makes wallbash3np.gif me wallbash3np.gif hyper wallbash3np.gifpost-7-1108415425.giftongue.gifwink3.giflaugh.gifbiggrin.gif

Edited by Tigerrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what pisses me off? Men who are against abortion rights.

I'm not a man, but I'm definitely pro-life/anti-abortion.

I believe a mother should consider abortion when her life is endangered, other than that no because pregnancies and newborns are God's greatest gifts to all living creatures on Earth.

What is Pro-Choice? As far as I can see (sorry, I didn't read any other posts), everyone (disregarding the ones who were raped) in the United States does have a choice of whether or not they should have sex, and using protection. Why do you want to have the choice of letting a baby die or live?

An unborn baby is not a human, it is a parasite. The baby feeds off the mother and it gets all of the nutrients essential to its growth and life. An unborn baby cannot live if it is disconected from the mother. It is, in definition, a parasite.

That's just wrong. I hope by saying that, you don't intend to have a child of your own in the future.

P.S. I apologize for bringing this up.

Edited by LannaN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is Pro-Choice? As far as I can see (sorry, I didn't read any other posts), everyone (disregarding the ones who were raped) in the United States does have a choice of whether or not they should have sex, and using protection. Why do you want to have the choice of letting a baby die or live?

And if protection fails? What then? Should a 16 year old girl have to destroy her planned life, because not doing so would fail to meet your moral standards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is Pro-Choice? As far as I can see (sorry, I didn't read any other posts), everyone (disregarding the ones who were raped) in the United States does have a choice of whether or not they should have sex, and using protection. Why do you want to have the choice of letting a baby die or live?

And if protection fails? What then? Should a 16 year old girl have to destroy her planned life, because not doing so would fail to meet your moral standards?

**enter the pro-choice Devil's Advocate**

Should she be exempt from the consequences of her own actions?

Does her plan equal the value of the potential life of her child? What about the plans that child might one day make?

**The pro-choice Devil's Advocate exits**

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She took every pre-caution (except that of not having sex), and it failed. And this is the 20th century - We can't expect people to only have sex when they want offspring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And if protection fails? What then? Should a 16 year old girl have to destroy her planned life, because not doing so would fail to meet your moral standards?

What about the baby's life? It should be let go of because its mother's life is more important? If the 'mother' has a plans ahead of her life, then she shouldn't be having sex. What's wrong with giving birth to the baby anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She took every pre-caution (except that of not having sex), and it failed. And this is the 20th century - We can't expect people to only have sex when they want offspring.

That raises a point but it does not answer the question...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it doesn't. You can't justify killing someone, not even when they are fetus. But some times, you have to do things that are not morally correct to do. We can't all be saints. With modern medicine, we can remove the fetus before it grows into a thinking existence, thus inflicting least damage to our society.

It's isn't perfect. Society isn't perfect. Humans aren't perfect. It's a real shame, but that's how it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The economic situation of a 16 year old girl? Her education? Her social growth?

What about the baby?

Oh well... to all those people who have killed an innocent baby because of their lack of responsibility, I hope it bites you one day.

"Humans aren't perfect." ---> I agree. Some kill others just so their life will be 'better.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the baby?

Oh well... to all those people who have killed an innocent baby because of their lack of responsibility, I hope it bites you one day.

"Humans aren't perfect." ---> I agree. Some kill others just so their life will be 'better.'

It's good you can sit up high on your pedestral and judge others. Looking down on others is a brilliant way to make yourself seem better. Making out dead serious issues as being luxury problems.

And for the record, I don't think dead fetuses bite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The economic situation of a 16 year old girl? Her education? Her social growth?

What about the baby?

Oh yes, a baby born to a teen. A teen who, due to the baby, will probably not get a good education, and therefore not get a good job. Teenage parents are much worse parents than adult parents--the baby will probably not have as good a life as it would if the teenage mother simply had an abortion, and chances are, the baby will wish ey was aborted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the baby will probably not have as good a life as it would if the teenage mother simply had an abortion, and chances are, the baby will wish ey was aborted.

This statement is, quite simply, idiotic. I like you Def, always have - but this is terrible.

Keeping in mind that I'm on your side in this argument, it is ludicrous - absolutely fudging crazy - to argue that the quality of life would be so low that it the person is better off never having been born. This is impossible to determine both from the point of view of the quality of life, and also from the point of view of the person who might have lived to decide what they thought of their own life.

Really, that's just ridiculous.

If we were to apply that logic to hospitals or car crashes we could off millions of people all the damn time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×