socialism, nazi, conservative, nazis, communism, stupid
This is an excellent explanation of why the Nazis, though their name contained the word "Socialist", were not- NOT- socialists.
Side note: we could rename the US the Union of Tiny Pink Unicorns, but we would not all turn into tiny pink unicorns.
Showing posts with label nazis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nazis. Show all posts
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
No Uterus, No Opinion
martin luther, children, gay, nazis, abortion, prochoice, prolife, choice, women, feminism, feminist, stupid
[censored] and I have the same opinion on the abortion debate: if you don't have a uterus, shut up. A man is never going to have to make that choice, is he? So why do so many men think they know exactly how a woman feels, exactly what the choices are, how they feel to make, or anything else about pregnancy? I won't try to tell you what erections feel like, you stop trying to tell me what having a uterus is like.
Emissary gives us this gem today, comparing abortion to slavery.
Yeah, I know, what the fuck?
One of the main arguments for abortion concerns the woman's body. The fetus grows within her, so it's technically considered "part of her" during development. yes, it is a part of her. fetuses cannot survive on their own. as they are inside of the woman's uterus, they are inside her body, and therefore, a "part of her". are we having trouble with the complexities of the english language again? And since it's "part of her body", she gets to choose what happens to it; termination or birth. yeah, pretty much. is there some sort of third option i am unaware of?
I thought a lot about this argument today not long enough, apparently, trying to determine what status a fetus has under this "pro-choice" logic. It is obviously not considered to be a human child because it's not a child. it's a fetus. children are capable of, I dunno, breathing. It has no right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness how precisely would a fetus make use of liberty or pursue happiness? it's in placenta in a uterus. where is it going in its pursuit of happiness?. In fact, it's not even considered to be "alive" by the pro-abortion populace. That would make it even less than a pet. my dog is not living inside my uterus, and, i can put my dog to sleep any time i want, so what was your point again? So what would it be? a fetus, asshat!According to the argument, it seems that a woman in essence owns the fetus. in the same way she "owns" her kidneys, i suppose. That would make the fetus her property.
stop it! right now! fetuses are not slaves. you know what a fetus really resembles the most? a parasite. no really, in a scientific sense, a fetus bears every resemblence to a parasite. See how ugly these sorts of comparisons can get?
i am really getting tired of false analogies, people. religion is not a cultural phenomenon like sports, homosexuals are not like nazis and fetuses are not like slaves. if you can't come up with a real argument, SHUT.THE.FUCK.UP.
[censored] and I have the same opinion on the abortion debate: if you don't have a uterus, shut up. A man is never going to have to make that choice, is he? So why do so many men think they know exactly how a woman feels, exactly what the choices are, how they feel to make, or anything else about pregnancy? I won't try to tell you what erections feel like, you stop trying to tell me what having a uterus is like.
Emissary gives us this gem today, comparing abortion to slavery.
Yeah, I know, what the fuck?
One of the main arguments for abortion concerns the woman's body. The fetus grows within her, so it's technically considered "part of her" during development. yes, it is a part of her. fetuses cannot survive on their own. as they are inside of the woman's uterus, they are inside her body, and therefore, a "part of her". are we having trouble with the complexities of the english language again? And since it's "part of her body", she gets to choose what happens to it; termination or birth. yeah, pretty much. is there some sort of third option i am unaware of?
I thought a lot about this argument today not long enough, apparently, trying to determine what status a fetus has under this "pro-choice" logic. It is obviously not considered to be a human child because it's not a child. it's a fetus. children are capable of, I dunno, breathing. It has no right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness how precisely would a fetus make use of liberty or pursue happiness? it's in placenta in a uterus. where is it going in its pursuit of happiness?. In fact, it's not even considered to be "alive" by the pro-abortion populace. That would make it even less than a pet. my dog is not living inside my uterus, and, i can put my dog to sleep any time i want, so what was your point again? So what would it be? a fetus, asshat!According to the argument, it seems that a woman in essence owns the fetus. in the same way she "owns" her kidneys, i suppose. That would make the fetus her property.
stop it! right now! fetuses are not slaves. you know what a fetus really resembles the most? a parasite. no really, in a scientific sense, a fetus bears every resemblence to a parasite. See how ugly these sorts of comparisons can get?
i am really getting tired of false analogies, people. religion is not a cultural phenomenon like sports, homosexuals are not like nazis and fetuses are not like slaves. if you can't come up with a real argument, SHUT.THE.FUCK.UP.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
