Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mercury News)   Pope Francis criticizes capitalism. Oh, wait a minute, did I say capitalism? I meant to say abortion. Move along, nothing to see here   ( mercurynews.com) divider line
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

1484 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jan 2014 at 9:33 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



222 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-01-13 08:41:30 AM  
This is hardly any sort of surprise.
 
2014-01-13 09:00:00 AM  

SilentStrider: This is hardly any sort of surprise.


It's one thing for the Pope to say "No Abortion"; it's another thing for him to wrap up as just a part of a whole life package to include everything that happens to a person after it's born.
 
2014-01-13 09:02:33 AM  

SilentStrider: This is hardly any sort of surprise.


It's not.  I'm a bit disappointed though that he didn't seem to attack the root causes of abortion.  I'm pro-choice but I hate abortion, I hate that it occurs.  It seems to me that the best way to tackle that problem is to provide PROPER education (NOT abstinence only nonsense), and promoting free contraception for all.  Now I've not heard his stance on contraception, but I know that many Catholics in the past have opposed it.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.  Want to stop abortions?  Stop unwanted pregnancies.  Common sense.
 
2014-01-13 09:06:07 AM  

nekom: I've not heard his stance on contraception


Contraception is a sin, most likely worse than abortion.
 
2014-01-13 09:09:33 AM  
Surprisingly enough, bears are Catholic, and the Pope does shiat in the woods.
 
2014-01-13 09:11:54 AM  
Well, yes, it's easy to be against abortion if there is no chance of someone parking in your white zone.
 
2014-01-13 09:14:20 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: nekom: I've not heard his stance on contraception

Contraception is a sin, most likely worse than abortion.


No, it's not worse. Abortion is definitely considered more sinful.
 
2014-01-13 09:17:50 AM  

nekom: Want to stop abortions? Stop unwanted pregnancies. Common sense.


I'd say the three things you could do to stop most unwanted pregnancies are (1) real sex education, (2) availability of contraception, and (3) increasing the standard of living and education, especially for women.

The problem with the discussion about abortion in this country (indeed, pretty much anywhere) is that they focus solely on the abortion, and not either what leads up to a woman needing an abortion or what happens to children after the mother doesn't get an abortion.

/Abortion.
 
2014-01-13 09:18:44 AM  

I_Am_Weasel: Well, yes, it's easy to be against abortion if there is no chance of someone parking in your white zone.


Listen Betty, don't start up with your white zone shiat again.
 
2014-01-13 09:21:21 AM  
Angry Drunk Bureaucrat:
The problem with the discussion about abortion in this country (indeed, pretty much anywhere) is that they focus solely on the abortion, and not either what leads up to a woman needing an abortion or what happens to children after the mother doesn't get an abortion.

Couldn't agree more.  It's too complex an issue to be summed up in a sound byte.  From a business perspective alone, if I'm an insurance company I want to hand out contraceptives like candy at a parade, it's a fantastic investment, hell of a lot cheaper than covering another person.  People have sex, that's why we're all here, and that trend is going to continue.  Trying to pretend that you can stop that is asinine.  Giving everyone education and access to contraceptives is probably the single most effective way to eliminate the majority of non-emergency abortions.  Yet the same people who vehemently oppose abortion seem to oppose contraceptives as well, it's pretty stupid.
 
2014-01-13 09:30:18 AM  

nekom: Couldn't agree more.  It's too complex an issue to be summed up in a sound byte.  From a business perspective alone, if I'm an insurance company I want to hand out contraceptives like candy at a parade, it's a fantastic investment, hell of a lot cheaper than covering another person.  People have sex, that's why we're all here, and that trend is going to continue.  Trying to pretend that you can stop that is asinine.  Giving everyone education and access to contraceptives is probably the single most effective way to eliminate the majority of non-emergency abortions.  Yet the same people who vehemently oppose abortion seem to oppose contraceptives as well, it's pretty stupid.


From the RCC perspective, in order to make that work they need to take the giant leap of divorcing sex from procreation and admit that sometimes people have sex because of the need for intimacy or, you know, because it's fun. Once you change your thinking on sex from a purely animalistic act to a very human act, and you open up the understanding about the need for birth control.

Of course, that's hard for a bunch of elderly, celibate guys to do.
 
2014-01-13 09:34:24 AM  
You know that guy who shows up whenever some multinational corporation finds itself in the news for the wrong reasons?

Whenever SuperGlobalMegaTwats[tm] get caught causing some huge disaster, or embroiled in some scandal, or just generally being typically evil, he's the one you start to see on all the news channels, with his comforting grin and practiced patter. Talking about how they're really sorry, they've learned the error of their ways, and it'll never happen again. If you could only see your way to giving them another chance, they can change, really they can. After all, they're good people underneath it all, it was just an accident, and they're just misunderstood

And as much as you might want to believe him and his fine words, deep down you know that they're not going to change. Oh, they might fire a couple of low ranking executives to try and deflect the bad press, but nothing about their behaviour is going to fundamentally change.

You know that guy?

Well, just because he puts on a white robe and learns to speak Latin, it doesn't mean he's any less full of shiat
 
2014-01-13 09:37:17 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: nekom: I've not heard his stance on contraception

Contraception is a sin, most likely worse than abortion.


I wonder how they came to that conclusion though.
 
2014-01-13 09:37:35 AM  

nekom: Want to stop abortions? Stop unwanted pregnancies. Common sense.


This this thisity this.
 
2014-01-13 09:38:23 AM  
Yes, if you believe in the fiction of souls, then you're going to draw incorrect conclusions on that premise.
 
2014-01-13 09:38:55 AM  

nekom: I'm pro-choice but I hate abortion, I hate that it occurs.


Why? There is nothing wrong with an abortion, and implying that there is only stigmatizes it further, which is exactly what anti-abortionists want.
 
2014-01-13 09:42:03 AM  
Abortion bans make women seem disposable, unimportant, just the wrapper on the baby.
 
2014-01-13 09:42:29 AM  
I have no problem with that. Unlike most people who hold that position, he is legitimately pro-life in all rspects
 
2014-01-13 09:44:16 AM  

Kome: nekom: I'm pro-choice but I hate abortion, I hate that it occurs.

Why? There is nothing wrong with an abortion, and implying that there is only stigmatizes it further, which is exactly what anti-abortionists want.


Mostly because it shouldn't ever HAVE to occur except in medical emergencies.  I don't hate anyone who has had one, but I do find it unfortunate that people are in that situation in the first place.  This is 2014 in the developed world, we have extremely effective contraceptives.  Everyone should have access to them.  I have no problem with my tax dollars being used to give access to those who can't afford it, it's a cheap investment.

And if I were a woman, I would never choose to have an abortion under most circumstances.  Lots of women feel that way.  The right to choose goes both ways.
 
2014-01-13 09:44:50 AM  
Look, you're all misreading the article.

 Pope Francis on Monday criticized abortion as evidence of a "throwaway culture" that wastes people as well as food, saying such a mentality is a threat to world peace.

The Pope wants us to eat babies and not just abort them because that would be wasteful.
 
2014-01-13 09:49:00 AM  

Kome: nekom: I'm pro-choice but I hate abortion, I hate that it occurs.

Why? There is nothing wrong with an abortion, and implying that there is only stigmatizes it further, which is exactly what anti-abortionists want.


To me, there is, depending on when it is done. I think it is as much wrong to say, "Abortion is wrong, period" as, "there is nothing, ever wrong with abortion".

When a fetus is able to survive on its own, one shouldn't be able to do it without a valid reason, because as soon as it is able to survive on its own, it is a life.

Similarly, when there is no life involved (say before 20 weeks), one should not have to face anything to be able to do it.
 
2014-01-13 09:51:26 AM  

Kome: nekom: I'm pro-choice but I hate abortion, I hate that it occurs.

Why? There is nothing wrong with an abortion, and implying that there is only stigmatizes it further, which is exactly what anti-abortionists want.



Bullshiat. No one wants to be in a situation where they have to get an abortion.

Abortion is invasive surgery, and invasive surgery (even when it's relatively safe and simple), is an indication that more reasonable preventive measures failed. Even planned Parenthood is very clear that they want abortions to be safe, accessible, and RARE.
 
2014-01-13 09:52:47 AM  
mayIFark:
To me, there is, depending on when it is done. I think it is as much wrong to say, "Abortion is wrong, period" as, "there is nothing, ever wrong with abortion".

When a fetus is able to survive on its own, one shouldn't be able to do it without a valid reason, because as soon as it is able to survive on its own, it is a life.

Similarly, when there is no life involved (say before 20 weeks), one should not have to face anything to be able to do it.


Well, the overwhelming majority of late term abortions are due to medical emergencies.  Most women who decide to have an abortion do so early.  The problem, to me, with any cutoff point is that it's going to be arbitrary.  At what point is a fetus viable?  Is is any more or less viable the day before or after?  The only two non-arbitrary points I can think of are conception and birth, and neither of those would be sensible for a cutoff point.

I think abortions should be safe, legal and rare.  So far they are as safe and legal as they can be.  I'd like to see them even more rare by means of education and access to contraceptives, I think that's a goal that pro-choice and pro-lifers might just agree on.
 
2014-01-13 09:56:53 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: nekom: I've not heard his stance on contraception

Contraception is a sin, most likely worse than abortion.


If they wanted an Abrahamic religion that considers abortion to be wrong, the only choice there is according to the various holy books is Islam.
 
2014-01-13 09:59:45 AM  
A religious leader is against abortion.

How is this news?
 
2014-01-13 09:59:59 AM  
Now the Libby Libby Libby's are going to hate him, hate him, hate him
 
2014-01-13 10:00:36 AM  

nekom: mayIFark:
To me, there is, depending on when it is done. I think it is as much wrong to say, "Abortion is wrong, period" as, "there is nothing, ever wrong with abortion".

When a fetus is able to survive on its own, one shouldn't be able to do it without a valid reason, because as soon as it is able to survive on its own, it is a life.

Similarly, when there is no life involved (say before 20 weeks), one should not have to face anything to be able to do it.

Well, the overwhelming majority of late term abortions are due to medical emergencies.  Most women who decide to have an abortion do so early.  The problem, to me, with any cutoff point is that it's going to be arbitrary.  At what point is a fetus viable?  Is is any more or less viable the day before or after?  The only two non-arbitrary points I can think of are conception and birth, and neither of those would be sensible for a cutoff point.

I think abortions should be safe, legal and rare.  So far they are as safe and legal as they can be.  I'd like to see them even more rare by means of education and access to contraceptives, I think that's a goal that pro-choice and pro-lifers might just agree on.


First off, as I said, "for a valid reason". Medical emergencies are valid reason, so we don't have an disagreement there. This is how I come to the cut off point. As far as I know, the earliest doctors were able to make a fetus survive is 23rd week. That pretty much mean, with current technology, 20 week will not be viable. Those 3 weeks are gray area (and all these numbers can change with the progress of science, but you can be rest assured there is no way before 16th week or so). So, you don't have to have a day as a cut off point (I don't know a good solution for those 3 weeks), but before and after that should be straightforward. Before 20th week, do as you like, no question asked, after 23rd week, have a valid reason.

I can't agree more with your last paragraph.
 
2014-01-13 10:03:53 AM  

mayIFark: nekom: mayIFark:
To me, there is, depending on when it is done. I think it is as much wrong to say, "Abortion is wrong, period" as, "there is nothing, ever wrong with abortion".

When a fetus is able to survive on its own, one shouldn't be able to do it without a valid reason, because as soon as it is able to survive on its own, it is a life.

Similarly, when there is no life involved (say before 20 weeks), one should not have to face anything to be able to do it.

Well, the overwhelming majority of late term abortions are due to medical emergencies.  Most women who decide to have an abortion do so early.  The problem, to me, with any cutoff point is that it's going to be arbitrary.  At what point is a fetus viable?  Is is any more or less viable the day before or after?  The only two non-arbitrary points I can think of are conception and birth, and neither of those would be sensible for a cutoff point.

I think abortions should be safe, legal and rare.  So far they are as safe and legal as they can be.  I'd like to see them even more rare by means of education and access to contraceptives, I think that's a goal that pro-choice and pro-lifers might just agree on.

First off, as I said, "for a valid reason". Medical emergencies are valid reason, so we don't have an disagreement there. This is how I come to the cut off point. As far as I know, the earliest doctors were able to make a fetus survive is 23rd week. That pretty much mean, with current technology, 20 week will not be viable. Those 3 weeks are gray area (and all these numbers can change with the progress of science, but you can be rest assured there is no way before 16th week or so). So, you don't have to have a day as a cut off point (I don't know a good solution for those 3 weeks), but before and after that should be straightforward. Before 20th week, do as you like, no question asked, after 23rd week, have a valid reason.

I can't agree more with your last paragraph.


This.
 
2014-01-13 10:04:16 AM  

karnal: Now the Libby Libby Libby's are going to hate him, hate him, hate him


Nobody understands the liberal mind better than the conservative shill.

Study it out.
 
2014-01-13 10:04:17 AM  
He's gotta play the classic hits every now and then.
 
MFK
2014-01-13 10:04:35 AM  
so are libruls supposed to start hating the pope now because he's against abortion?

I swear to god, i'm so sick to death of "conservative logic". The farking stupid burns so much.
 
2014-01-13 10:05:00 AM  

limeyfellow: Marcus Aurelius: nekom: I've not heard his stance on contraception

Contraception is a sin, most likely worse than abortion.

If they wanted an Abrahamic religion that considers abortion to be wrong, the only choice there is according to the various holy books is Islam.


Citation Needed.

As far as I know, Islam is the only of the 3 to allow sex for fun (with your spouse of course). Also, they believe God establishes life on the fetus on the 16th (or 14th or something like that, not on conception). As a result, early abortions are allowed.

What you are saying is pretty much the exact opposite, so back it up with citation from valid source.
 
2014-01-13 10:05:22 AM  

karnal: Now the Libby Libby Libby's are going to hate him, hate him, hate him


Love the sinner, hate the sin.
 
2014-01-13 10:09:40 AM  

nekom: SilentStrider: This is hardly any sort of surprise.

It's not.  I'm a bit disappointed though that he didn't seem to attack the root causes of abortion.  I'm pro-choice but I hate abortion, I hate that it occurs.  It seems to me that the best way to tackle that problem is to provide PROPER education (NOT abstinence only nonsense), and promoting free contraception for all.  Now I've not heard his stance on contraception, but I know that many Catholics in the past have opposed it.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.  Want to stop abortions?  Stop unwanted pregnancies.  Common sense.


He has also said, "On the other hand, it is also true that we have done little to adequately accompany women in very difficult situations, where abortion appears as a quick solution to their profound anguish, especially when the life developing within them is the result of rape or a situation of extreme poverty. Who can remain unmoved before such painful situations?"

It's pretty clear that he is not endorsing a doctrine where women are mere secondary considerations as so much of the anti-abortion crowd seem to be. He really does seem pro life - all life, at every stage. That said, I believe that the best option for most women is not getting pregnant in the first place, and the Church still has not changed its (wrong and damaging) stance on birth control.
 
2014-01-13 10:10:47 AM  

karnal: Now the Libby Libby Libby's are going to hate him, hate him, hate him


Or, you know, disagree with him on that point while still acknowledging he's miles ahead of the anti-woman stances of the American Right Wing.
 
2014-01-13 10:13:30 AM  

nekom: SilentStrider: This is hardly any sort of surprise.

It's not.  I'm a bit disappointed though that he didn't seem to attack the root causes of abortion.  I'm pro-choice but I hate abortion, I hate that it occurs.  It seems to me that the best way to tackle that problem is to provide PROPER education (NOT abstinence only nonsense), and promoting free contraception for all.  Now I've not heard his stance on contraception, but I know that many Catholics in the past have opposed it.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.  Want to stop abortions?  Stop unwanted pregnancies.  Common sense.


Pretty much.

It throws me when I ask people who are anti-choice, "Abortions are legal today, and outlawing abortion is going to be a long and difficult process.  Why don't you guys focus more on reducing the things that lead to unwanted pregnancy in the first place?", and it just goes right over their head while they give me the "life is sacred" line.  Again.
 
2014-01-13 10:13:51 AM  

mayIFark: As far as I know, the earliest doctors were able to make a fetus survive is 23rd week. That pretty much mean, with current technology, 20 week will not be viable. Those 3 weeks are gray area (and all these numbers can change with the progress of science, but you can be rest assured there is no way before 16th week or so). So, you don't have to have a day as a cut off point (I don't know a good solution for those 3 weeks), but before and after that should be straightforward. Before 20th week, do as you like, no question asked, after 23rd week, have a valid reason.


That gray area is still a big problem with setting any cutoff point.  But maybe that's a solution looking for a problem anyway, as most late term abortions are for medical reasons.  No one gets pregnant, decides they don't want a child but decides to wait 4 months anyway.  And if there are a few that do, well I don't know what the law ought to be.  It's a really tricky situation.
 
2014-01-13 10:16:24 AM  
Ideological purity tests - not just for conservatives anymore.
 
2014-01-13 10:22:32 AM  

nekom: I think abortions should be safe, legal and rare. So far they are as safe and legal as they can be. I'd like to see them even more rare by means of education and access to contraceptives, I think that's a goal that pro-choice and pro-lifers might just agree on.


Considering the "pro-lifers" are vehemently opposed to education and contraception, I think you're wrong about them agreeing with your goal.
 
2014-01-13 10:26:03 AM  

nekom: Mostly because it shouldn't ever HAVE to occur except in medical emergencies.


Well, they don't ever have to occur except in medical emergencies. But just because something doesn't have to occur doesn't mean that it doesn't occur. And some of the reasons that they do occur in non-medical emergencies are still valid reasons to get one.

nekom: The right to choose goes both ways.


I'm not saying it doesn't. But the attitude that abortion is a procedure that is deserving of hate, as you originally said, is, I think, a morally tenuous position to take.

mayIFark: To me, there is, depending on when it is done. I think it is as much wrong to say, "Abortion is wrong, period" as, "there is nothing, ever wrong with abortion".

When a fetus is able to survive on its own, one shouldn't be able to do it without a valid reason, because as soon as it is able to survive on its own, it is a life.

Similarly, when there is no life involved (say before 20 weeks), one should not have to face anything to be able to do it.


The procedure itself is neither wrong or not wrong. It's like getting a steroid injection. It's a morally neutral act, but in some instances it is morally justified (or even obligatory), such as in medical cases where steroid injections can help stave off disease, and in other instances it is morally unjustified, such as when used to cheat in athletic competitions. I think some people could abuse the availability of abortions, but most wouldn't because most people around the planet do not abuse things that are easily abusable (e.g. alcohol). That's not necessarily a good enough reason, in my mind, to regulate it based on some sort of temporal dimension.

On the other hand, giving birth is 14x more likely to cause death to a woman than an abortion is [source:
Raymond, E. G., & Grimes, D. A. (2012). The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 119(2, Part 1), 215-219.]. So, just because the fetus is able to survive outside the womb is not necessarily a good enough reason to require women carry out the remainder of the pregnancy if she doesn't wish to. Maybe the pregnancy that she no longer wants (for whatever reason) is starting to impact her ability to perform her job, and she is losing wages because of reduced hours (not to mention additional hospital visits to the OB-GYN). Maybe the hormonal changes that are occurring to her are negatively impacting her psychological welfare or her existing social relationships. Maybe her husband/boyfriend just left her and she's so incredibly unsure about her financial outlook that a child (or another child, as the case may be) would compound her situation even further, and in such a way as would negatively impact the baby, too. In any event, at that point, just because the fetus could survive outside the womb, and making the pregnant woman carry it to term is forcing her to experience a riskier procedure, which is in my mind a greater moral harm than having an abortion in the second or third trimester.

Also, minor quibble. At no point in the pregnancy does the fetus "become life". It *is* life. It is made of living cells, just like any of our skin cells, or brain cells, or blood cells, or cancer cells, or the e. coli that lives in our intestines, or whatever. The debate isn't whether or not it's life, but whether or not it's a separate person deserving of rights that trump those of pregnant women.

RevCarter: Bullshiat. No one wants to be in a situation where they have to get an abortion.


Maybe not the best analogy, but no one wants to be in a situation where they have to sell their car, but that doesn't make it morally right or wrong to do so in the abstract.
 
2014-01-13 10:27:09 AM  
What is his stance on miniature American flags?
 
2014-01-13 10:27:17 AM  

Kome: I'm not saying it doesn't. But the attitude that abortion is a procedure that is deserving of hate, as you originally said, is, I think, a morally tenuous position to take.


We should call it "the Freedom Fetus Flush" and give out stickers. And balloons.
 
2014-01-13 10:29:33 AM  

Kome: But the attitude that abortion is a procedure that is deserving of hate, as you originally said, is, I think, a morally tenuous position to take.


Oh I'm not saying it's deserving of hate or shame, just that I feel it's unfortunate that a woman is ever in a position that requires making that unfortunate choice.  I only personally know one woman who has had an abortion (that has talked to me about it anyway), it was NOT easy for her.  She still suffers some degree of second guessing and mental anguish.

On that same note, it really drives the point home that nobody is out there getting abortions willy nilly.  It is a VERY serious matter, and I'd just prefer that less (hopefully approaching zero) women are ever put in a position that they have to make that sad decision.  I would not want to take that option away from ANYONE, but it's just a very unfortunate thing.
 
2014-01-13 10:33:39 AM  

mayIFark: limeyfellow: Marcus Aurelius: nekom: I've not heard his stance on contraception

Contraception is a sin, most likely worse than abortion.

If they wanted an Abrahamic religion that considers abortion to be wrong, the only choice there is according to the various holy books is Islam.

Citation Needed.

As far as I know, Islam is the only of the 3 to allow sex for fun (with your spouse of course). Also, they believe God establishes life on the fetus on the 16th (or 14th or something like that, not on conception). As a result, early abortions are allowed.

What you are saying is pretty much the exact opposite, so back it up with citation from valid source.


Looks like you are not going to follow it up, so here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_abortion

Reading the article, you can pretty much declare Islam to be pro-choice.
 
2014-01-13 10:37:29 AM  

mayIFark: mayIFark: limeyfellow: Marcus Aurelius: nekom: I've not heard his stance on contraception

Contraception is a sin, most likely worse than abortion.

If they wanted an Abrahamic religion that considers abortion to be wrong, the only choice there is according to the various holy books is Islam.

Citation Needed.

As far as I know, Islam is the only of the 3 to allow sex for fun (with your spouse of course). Also, they believe God establishes life on the fetus on the 16th (or 14th or something like that, not on conception). As a result, early abortions are allowed.

What you are saying is pretty much the exact opposite, so back it up with citation from valid source.

Looks like you are not going to follow it up, so here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_abortion

Reading the article, you can pretty much declare Islam to be pro-choice.


Now, there's a religion that knows how to respect a lady.
 
2014-01-13 10:38:27 AM  

stpauler: Look, you're all misreading the article.

 Pope Francis on Monday criticized abortion as evidence of a "throwaway culture" that wastes people as well as food, saying such a mentality is a threat to world peace.

The Pope wants us to eat babies and not just abort them because that would be wasteful.


A modest proposal if I ever heard one.
 
2014-01-13 10:44:05 AM  

Kome: So, just because the fetus is able to survive outside the womb is not necessarily a good enough reason to require women carry out the remainder of the pregnancy if she doesn't wish to. Maybe the pregnancy that she no longer wants (for whatever reason) is starting to impact her ability to perform her job, and she is losing wages because of reduced hours (not to mention additional hospital visits to the OB-GYN).


This is of course, my personal opinion, but I do not agree with that. Living in the society means performing some duties that you cannot just give up just because you want to. You cannot just push a child out the door and lock it just because you want to, even if the child is impacting her job and she is losing her wages or whatever. I think similar logic applies for late terms. Yes, you should be able to for a valid reason, but none of them you mentioned here can be considered valid. Do what you can so that you don't have to get to that point, but when you do not utilize your chances at contraception, before 20th/23rd week, and there is no emergency, you have to bare with the consequences.
 
2014-01-13 10:46:10 AM  

Nabb1: mayIFark: mayIFark: limeyfellow: Marcus Aurelius: nekom: I've not heard his stance on contraception

Contraception is a sin, most likely worse than abortion.

If they wanted an Abrahamic religion that considers abortion to be wrong, the only choice there is according to the various holy books is Islam.

Citation Needed.

As far as I know, Islam is the only of the 3 to allow sex for fun (with your spouse of course). Also, they believe God establishes life on the fetus on the 16th (or 14th or something like that, not on conception). As a result, early abortions are allowed.

What you are saying is pretty much the exact opposite, so back it up with citation from valid source.

Looks like you are not going to follow it up, so here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_abortion

Reading the article, you can pretty much declare Islam to be pro-choice.

Now, there's a religion that knows how to respect a lady.


LOL. Islam treats women like shiat, may be more so than others, but you gotta give the respect where its due.
 
2014-01-13 10:47:10 AM  
Oh goody. Another thread where all the mens weigh in on my rights and duties as the owner of a uterus.
 
2014-01-13 10:53:59 AM  

ginandbacon: Oh goody. Another thread where all the mens weigh in on my rights and duties as the owner of a uterus.


That's another position I cannot agree with. You didn't make that on your own (if you did through insemination, it's little bit different), but otherwise, it is as much as the guy's as it is for the girls (and no one else).

But until you figure out how to do it all on your own, don't pretend like we have nothing to do with it.
 
Displayed 50 of 222 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report