Day of Silence for Abortion

On October 18 2011 22:12 Polemos wrote:
Today in school, a female classmate of mine has duct tape over her face, not speaking out because she is so against abortion. I find this pretty ridiculous. A few people not talking for a day can be a nice relief. An overbearing, loudmouth teenager isn't talking. I really don't this an effective method.

Honestly, what is a few people not talking going to do for the controversy that is abortion in the U.S? Can someone please tell me what not talking is going to do for abortion? Sure, she can express what she believes in, but where is the practicality in this?

On October 18 2011 22:42 Sqalevon wrote:


I think it already worked since you are posting about it and asking others for their opinion on the matter.
Also I'm for abortion and like the way things are handled here in the Netherlands.

On October 18 2011 22:45 Polemos wrote:
I guess my question is where is the practicality?

On October 18 2011 22:48 bonifaceviii wrote:

What is your definition of a "practical" political expression? Handing out leaflets on street corners?

On October 18 2011 22:51 Velr wrote:
I imagine if a boy would do thas at a "normal" school he would get beat up in like no time... :p

On October 18 2011 22:54 Cascade wrote:
Well, all these kinds of protests are about getting attention/raising awareness or whatever you want to call, rather than actually providing a proper argument.

And in that she seems to be doing a good job, seeing how you made a thread about it. I guess you and most of the 228 viewers of this blog at some point spent at least a few seconds considering where they stand in the abortion question. Which was exactly what she wanted.

On October 18 2011 23:38 Djzapz wrote:
Maybe she's wearing tape because she realizes that she should shut up and not tell actual people how to live their life...

On October 18 2011 23:41 Sm3agol wrote:


That's pretty much exactly what abortion is....telling someone they can't live their life, because you're going to end it as soon as it starts.

On October 18 2011 23:24 Hawk wrote:


ding ding ding

Now as stupid as her stance is on the matter (free choice!), if she really wanted to go do something that's gonna catch everyone's eye and make a scene, she and her buddies should have bought a whole bunch of baby dolls, threw them in a big garbage can and left it in the most highly trafficked intersection in the school with the website stickers all over the can. Instant publicity. Damn amateurs. I should just become a protest organizer. I know how to make a scene.

On October 18 2011 23:41 Sm3agol wrote:


That's pretty much exactly what abortion is....telling someone they can't live their life, because you're going to end it as soon as it starts.

On October 18 2011 23:45 Ryalnos wrote:


Her stance on the matter is not 'stupid', don't be an idiot. It is a reasonable conclusion from a different set of initial assumptions and priorities.

On October 18 2011 23:51 Djzapz wrote:

Owning slaves is a good idea if the priority is making money. Reasonable conclusions are not so great when the premises are disgusting.

On October 19 2011 00:03 Vul wrote:


Keep in mind though that you hold your beliefs about slavery because "certain initial assumptions and priorities" have also changed, over time, in the culture in which you live. In a different era, your conclusion about slavery would also not be reasonable in the same way, because people's assumptions about what equality means did not extend to minorities.

On October 18 2011 23:45 Ryalnos wrote:


Her stance on the matter is not 'stupid', don't be an idiot. It is a reasonable conclusion from a different set of initial assumptions and priorities.

On October 18 2011 23:41 Sm3agol wrote:


That's pretty much exactly what abortion is....telling someone they can't live their life, because you're going to end it as soon as it starts.

On October 18 2011 23:41 Sm3agol wrote:


That's pretty much exactly what abortion is....telling someone they can't live their life, because you're going to end it as soon as it starts.

On October 19 2011 00:20 Djzapz wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
I guess I wouldn't call the girl stupid for being an "activist" against abortion... I would definitely say, however, that she's of questionable morality. I question the morality of basically everyone who are arguing that a mass of biological stuff which we can produce absurdly easily should be looked at in high regard simply because of a borderline religious admiration for said biomass.

Obviously, none of us (provided we're sane) are like "yay abortion is awesome". It's an unfortunate reality, but thanks science for this procedure which helps women - people with actual emotions, who perhaps have been trying to cope with having been raped 9 months before...

On October 19 2011 00:30 aimless wrote:


What? It's not a "mass of biological stuff". Abortion happens after conception. It's the start of a new organism's life cycle. And that isn't a religious concept, that's basic science. How you feel about killing the organism at that point is your business, but I don't think you should question her morality on skewed assumptions about religion.

On October 19 2011 00:30 aimless wrote:
What? It's not a "mass of biological stuff". Abortion happens after conception. It's the start of a new organism's life cycle. And that isn't a religious concept, that's basic science. How you feel about killing the organism at that point is your business, but I don't think you should question her morality on skewed assumptions about religion.

On October 19 2011 00:30 aimless wrote:


What? It's not a "mass of biological stuff". Abortion happens after conception. It's the start of a new organism's life cycle. And that isn't a religious concept, that's basic science. How you feel about killing the organism at that point is your business, but I don't think you should question her morality on skewed assumptions about religion.

On October 19 2011 00:32 Boonbag wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +


Bacterias also do have a life cycle.

On October 19 2011 00:30 aimless wrote:


What? It's not a "mass of biological stuff". Abortion happens after conception. It's the start of a new organism's life cycle. And that isn't a religious concept, that's basic science. How you feel about killing the organism at that point is your business, but I don't think you should question her morality on skewed assumptions about religion.

On October 19 2011 00:36 Djzapz wrote:

Here's a little rundown. I'm a mass of biological stuff. Sperm is life.

The religious concept is not the science part, the religious part is the irrational "love" for said biological stuff which has no value.

You conveniently completely misinterpreted my post. (By mistake perhaps, or on purpose.)

On October 19 2011 00:35 unichan wrote:
I hate this argument lol, other people have differing opinions on when life starts - just because the mass of cells can't feel or think or anything doesn't mean it's not alive to some people ~_~. Personally I changed my stance to neutral on this issue to avoid the shitstorm, but if you're a pro lifer on TL (or anywhere on the internet, really) you're going to have a hard time. Political discussions on the internet are dumb imo because the discussions will usually be 95% liberal

I don't know why everyone thinks the girl wearing duct tape on her mouth is stupid, she's doing something for a cause that she cares about. Even if you don't think it's effective, this thread proves that it is. It's like someone wearing an ugly jacket - if you don't like it, ignore it. It's not going to interfere with your life unless you let it.

Edit: Also I know plenty of athiest pro-lifers, it's not just some religious thing

On October 19 2011 00:38 danl9rm wrote:
That's right guys! Someone is trying to make a difference; let's make fun of them! Hahahaha, someone doesn't just think of how comfortable they can be all day long and is thinking of someone other than themselves, what a moron!

On October 19 2011 00:36 aimless wrote:

Yes. Yes they do. I'm not sure where you're going with that. Because I don't think anyone questions the morality of killing bacteria. Bacteria don't grow into people, so having a different moral stance on them isn't necessarily wrong.

On October 19 2011 00:38 danl9rm wrote:
That's right guys! Someone is trying to make a difference; let's make fun of them! Hahahaha, someone doesn't just think of how comfortable they can be all day long and is thinking of someone other than themselves, what a moron!

On October 19 2011 00:30 aimless wrote:


What? It's not a "mass of biological stuff". Abortion happens after conception. It's the start of a new organism's life cycle. And that isn't a religious concept, that's basic science. How you feel about killing the organism at that point is your business, but I don't think you should question her morality on skewed assumptions about religion.

On October 19 2011 00:40 RubiksCube wrote:


No, it doesn't. I proves that people have opinions and it makes people think about their stance on the subject. It does not get HER point across, though. Unless she tells everyone the context (as in she silences her voice, because so many babies have had their voice silence by being aborted) it doesn't do anything to convice anyone about pro-life, all it does is stir up discussion.

On October 19 2011 00:44 unichan wrote:

Yeah, it stirred up discussion on a site of male liberals so obviously no one is going to be turned to her point of view - but what if it started discussion somewhere else where there wasn't as obvious of a bias?
My point is, lay off the poor girl, she isn't doing anything wrong. Talking about abortion rights on a site of male liberals is completely pointless and is just going to cause a bunch of guys reinforcing each others views and patting each other on the back and collectively jumping on and tearing apart anyone who comes in with an opposing view.

On October 19 2011 00:36 Djzapz wrote:

Here's a little rundown. I'm a mass of biological stuff. Sperm is life.

The religious concept is not the science part, the religious part is the irrational "love" for said biological stuff which has no value.

You conveniently completely misinterpreted my post. (By mistake perhaps, or on purpose.)

On October 19 2011 00:46 Boonbag wrote:


what the fuck ? you actually know generations of women fought to get this right ?
ofc what she is doing is wrong

On October 19 2011 00:49 OmniEulogy wrote:


Abortion wasn't fought for by generations of women... do you really not know who Dr. Hovorka is? He's the one who fought for this lol

On October 19 2011 00:46 Boonbag wrote:


what the fuck ? you actually know generations of women fought to get this right ?
ofc what she is doing is wrong

On October 19 2011 00:50 unichan wrote:

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are wrong. I'm sure generations of Kim Jong Ils fought for dictatorship or whatever is going on in North Korea too, but I'm not wrong because I don't support that.
Anyways I do support abortion rights, but everyone should have to pay for their own abortion fully and it should be regulated - kind of like what OmniEulogy said, but more relaxed

On October 19 2011 00:29 RubiksCube wrote:



This is stupid.

You're completely disregarding the fact, that not every pregnancy is the same.

Where do you stop with this and where do you start?

What if I know I can't be a good father/mother and thus don't want a baby?

What about 2 mentally handicapped people, who can't even take care of themselves, do you forbid them to have an abortion?

Do you tell a rape victim, who got impregnanted by it, that she should still keep the baby?

What about the poor families in africa, where getting another baby means it'll have 50% to die of hunger before it is 6? Would you rather tell them to keep the baby only to make it suffer?

What about situations in hospitals in which getting the baby would carry a huge risk for the mother? How huge of a risk is huge enough to warrant abortion? 25% chance to die for the mother? 50%? 75%?

I'm a father myself, and I got my kid in a situation where some probably wouldn't. And I know it's the greatest feeling on earth. And I know I would die for my son. But still, everyone should be able to choose.

You (and every pro-lifer for that matter) just make a general statement and shove on to a situation that never is general. It's always complicated.

On October 19 2011 00:41 Boonbag wrote:


you're actually wrong

we grew out from bacterias long long ago

concepts attached the word "life" are as diverse as the world is

it's actually fun to notice that most common people that are pro life are usually religious bigots and also for the death penalty

On October 19 2011 00:52 Boonbag wrote:


your comparison is sure right on the spot

On October 19 2011 00:57 unichan wrote:

Sorry you have a hard time dealing with people disagreeing with you

On October 19 2011 00:58 Djzapz wrote:
I like you Sm3agol.

If you don't take the rape pill, get a free rape baby that'll mess up your body while you're psychologically messed up giving painful birth to a rape-baby!

Seems cruel.

I like that abortion is fine if it's done with a pill even though the potential baby is just as much of a potential baby when it's an early fetus.

On October 19 2011 00:59 Boonbag wrote:


of course I do if these very people are trying to take away from me some of my rights

On some epic day, G. Carlin wrote:
Why, why, why is it that the people that are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to fuck anyways?

How come when it's us, it's an abortion, but when it's a chicken- it's an omelette!

On October 19 2011 01:02 Thorakh wrote:
Abortion should only happen in cases of: rape, risk of the mother dying or impracticality of having a baby in the mother's life situation. 'Just not wanting a baby' is not a valid excuse., You should've thought of that before having sex, or at least used a morning after pill.

On October 19 2011 01:02 Sm3agol wrote:


Or let's hear it from the babies perspective, it sounds much nicer that way.

"My mother was raped by a random idiot, so that means I have to die."

And "the pill" is infinitely more justifiable because the baby at that point is completely unable to survive on it's own, regardless of anything we could do. Hence I could understand putting it to the mother's choice at that point in it's life.

On October 19 2011 01:03 Probe1 wrote:


Pro life isn't pro life. It's anti woman. It's anti rights. It's morally corrupt.

On October 19 2011 01:02 Sm3agol wrote:


Or let's hear it from the babies perspective, it sounds much nicer that way.

"My mother was raped by a random idiot, so that means I have to die."

And "the pill" is infinitely more justifiable because the baby at that point is completely unable to survive on it's own, regardless of anything we could do. Hence I could understand putting it to the mother's choice at that point in it's life.

On October 19 2011 01:03 Boonbag wrote:


foetus don't have any perspective but their own self developpement

bacterias are usually the same

On October 19 2011 01:05 Djzapz wrote:

Which baby?

Let's hear it from this other baby. My dad fapped in a sock, so I have to die. You genocidal maniac Sm3agol.

I can guarantee you that 3 months fetuses are just as likely to survive as your sticky socks.

On October 19 2011 01:05 Sm3agol wrote:

Bacteria will never develop that perspective. A fetus is merely 9 months away from that perspective.

On October 19 2011 01:06 Sm3agol wrote:

If your Dad is fapping into socks with unfertilized eggs in it, then he might have more serious issues we might want to talk about.

On October 19 2011 00:58 Boonbag wrote:
got another fact for you, how can you tell the hands u use to type are really yours ?

On October 19 2011 01:07 Djzapz wrote:

Well not if you take the morning after pill.

On October 19 2011 01:07 Cascade wrote:


Just for the record, that is a question, not a fact.

And the turn this blog took! :o Crazy! OP, go tell the girl about this blog, and make her post (unless her silence-day forbids her...). :D

On October 19 2011 01:07 Sm3agol wrote:

if the mother were to die, it wouldn't either.

On October 19 2011 00:58 Boonbag wrote:
what a mish mash of narrowed conceptions

not a single thing you've said makes any sense

"its just a fact"

yeah

got another fact for you, how can you tell the hands u use to type are really yours ?

On October 19 2011 01:08 Djzapz wrote:

Cool story bro, Where's the substance been in your last few responses where you were checkmated?

On October 19 2011 01:08 aimless wrote:


I'll assume this is directed toward me. You ask how I know my hands are mine? I'll raise you one tangentially-related question with an even more tangentially-related question.

You have a ship. Slowly over time, as boards rot and nails rust, you replace the worn parts. After years and years and years, you've replaced every single part. Is it still the ship you first bought or is it a new ship altogether?

Yes, if I had that surgery where doctors gave me some other person's hands, "are they really my hands?" would become a realistic question.

But in simple terms, something stops being yours when it starts being someone else's. Are you still your mother's fetus? When did that change?

On October 19 2011 01:02 Sm3agol wrote:


Or let's hear it from the babies perspective, it sounds much nicer that way.

"My mother was raped by a random idiot, so that means I have to die."

And "the pill" is infinitely more justifiable because the baby at that point is completely unable to survive on it's own, regardless of anything we could do. Hence I could understand putting it to the mother's choice at that point in it's life.

On October 19 2011 01:13 HackBenjamin wrote:


Is it better for the child to grow up potentially being resented for your whole life because of something ENTIRELY beyond your ocntrol?? Being a constant reminder of a rape? Is it ok if the woman who got raped is a broke ass student with no means of supporting a child? Or a drug addict? Should they give birth to crack babies?

You seem to be capable of saying when abortion IS ok (the morning after pill, or when it's a risk to the mothers life), so I'm going to assume that, on some level, you acknowledge that abortions are ok, depending on circumstance.

On October 19 2011 01:13 Jibba wrote:
I really don't understand the girl in the OP. Quite frankly, I love talking about abortion. It really brings out the little kid inside you.

On October 19 2011 01:13 Jibba wrote:
I really don't understand the girl in the OP. Quite frankly, I love talking about abortion. It really brings out the little kid inside you.

On October 19 2011 01:08 Djzapz wrote:

Where's the substance been in your last few responses where you were checkmated?

On October 19 2011 01:20 Roe wrote:

I didn't realize a fetus could speak so fluently. To all the pro-lifers who say the mother has to keep the baby and birth it even if she was raped or a druggy etc...Why don't you adopt the baby and save it if you love life so much? Why would you let it live in such terrible conditions? Does this not yield some hypocrisy when you call yourself pro-life and force them to live the life of a destitute?

On October 19 2011 01:13 Jibba wrote:
I really don't understand the girl in the OP. Quite frankly, I love talking about abortion. It really brings out the little kid inside you.

On October 19 2011 01:23 Sm3agol wrote:

Funny you should say this, I fully intend on adopting several children when I can. No reason to have your own kids when there are thousands of unwanted ones out there. Plus saves some wear and tear on the wifey.

On October 19 2011 00:53 Sm3agol wrote:


The same could be applied to abortion. When do you stop? What if, 5 years into a child's life, you decide you can't care for it properly. Is it still ok to kill it? After all, they still can't make their own decisions then either? The "where do you stop and start" is a terrible argument for justifying something.



Don't get pregnant? Mistakes happen, yes, but that's not a good justification for killing someone.



Same as above. I also don't think someone legally mentally handicapped should be physically able to have children, for the children's sake.



There are these wonderful pills you can take up to a week afterwards that can keep that from happening. Would work for the first two arguments you threw up there as well. And again, as bad as rape is, it's not a good justification for killing someone. In any case, see my closing paragraph.


See others answers.


This is kind of dicey, but in this situation I would allow for an abortion. No use risking the life of the mother for the life of the baby. In this situation, you're taking an uncertain life to save a certain life......definitely more justifiable than, "Oh crap i don't have condom, lets screw anyways, and if anything happens, we'll just kill it". Seriously, wtf kind of argument or rational is that?



You are able to choose. Babies don't happen accidentally. In the case of rape, it's not something the female can choose, but it still isn't accidental.


Yes, it is complicated, but that's no excuse for giving a blanket cop-out to anyone dumb enough to have unprotected sex, or not take a just-in-case pill if something goes awry. We're talking about a human life, why is it treated so flippantly? We have 37 pages in a single day in a thread where a clearly unwanted Chinese toddler is ran over by a car, and everyone raging and outraged, when thousands of unwanted children are killed even more coldly every day, and legally. Seriously people?

And for the pure "morality take", since I can kind of understand another point of view. It is kind of the mother's choice at the beginning, because since for the first few months the baby cannot live on its own without the mother, hence, it is basically part of the mother's body. For that reason, I would not be outraged at abortion being legal until the baby has passed the point where it can reasonably survive on its own(aka, something like the 50% survival rate age).

On October 19 2011 00:50 unichan wrote:

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are wrong. I'm sure generations of Kim Jong Ils fought for dictatorship or whatever is going on in North Korea too, but I'm not wrong because I don't support that.

Anyways I do support abortion rights, but everyone should have to pay for their own abortion fully and it should be regulated - kind of like what OmniEulogy said, but more relaxed

On October 19 2011 02:49 Chef wrote:
It raises awareness, but at the same time I'm pretty sure everyone already has an opinion so there's no sense in raising awareness. It's just the kind of pretend activism people do to feel like they are doing something but really they're completely useless.

I'm pro-abortion because it reduces crime as long as you don't consider killing fetuses a crime (with mom's permission) and I don't.

So it's not like a issue like cancer or AIDs where there are people who just don't know a lot about it but would universally agree its something worth thinking about, it's an issue which is really opinionated and requires serious debate to come to a legal conclusion.

On October 18 2011 22:45 Polemos wrote:

My opinion is that it is no one but the parents business. Government, church, no one should be gettig into my (theoretical) wives womb.

I guess my question is where is the practicality?

On October 19 2011 03:10 lzickoslav wrote:


Exactly,Government, church, no one should be gettig between my bullet and some human i point at.After all,she is just 20 years old reaction of two cells.

On October 19 2011 02:45 Haemonculus wrote:

Unichan, I like you but this is easily one of the dumbest analogies I've ever read on this site. I think a lot of young women entirely take for granted the ability to control their own reproductive choices.


All this does is punish poor women. Wealthy women will be able to afford the procedure, and poor women will resort of back alley abortions which are incredibly dangerous.

There are way too many misconceptions about abortion. Here is a fun video giving a look at the demographics of just who is having abortions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rY-bQ6UzhNI

My real question to people who oppose abortion though is this: What should the penalty be? How do you want to punish those who have abortions? (Assuming you want it to be illegal)

On October 19 2011 03:01 Enervate wrote:
What is one vote going to do in an election?

If everyone thought that way, no one would vote. What if every single person in the world covered their mouth with duct tape? Would you still think that wouldn't be a big deal?

It's about principle, not practicality.

On October 19 2011 03:01 Enervate wrote:
What is one vote going to do in an election?

If everyone thought that way, no one would vote. What if every single person in the world covered their mouth with duct tape? Would you still think that wouldn't be a big deal?

It's about principle, not practicality.

On October 19 2011 03:24 Djzapz wrote:

Yeah because 2 "cells" (did you go to school?) + 20 years is the same as "2 cells" without 20 years.

On October 19 2011 00:22 HackBenjamin wrote:


Yeah you know what's better? Letting a kid be born to a crack addicted mother. Pretty sure life is pretty close to over when you're born addicted to crack too.

Some other awesome things about abortion cures:

Rape babies
Broken condom babies
Unhealthy fetuses (If you're going to tout pro-life shit, you better be prepared to discuss quality of life too)

I'm sure there are more.

On October 18 2011 22:59 Thrill wrote:
I wish this would be a 24/7, 365 day year-a-round thing for men who are against abortion. Would make the public debate on a woman's right to much more bearable to listen to.

On October 19 2011 04:04 Trict wrote:

So if my gf got pregnant and wanted to abort the child I have no say in my childs future? Lets be real now.

On October 19 2011 04:04 Trict wrote:

So if my gf got pregnant and wanted to abort the child I have no say in my childs future? Lets be real now.

On October 19 2011 04:04 Trict wrote:

So if my gf got pregnant and wanted to abort the child I have no say in my childs future? Lets be real now.

On November 04 2011 08:04 Ir0nClad wrote:
I was pro-choice about 2 weeks ago around the time of this posting. I figured, it's her mind her body, and what about in the cases of rape or incest or something like that?

Then I saw this and I am now pro-life:

http://www.180movie.com

On November 04 2011 08:04 Ir0nClad wrote:
I was pro-choice about 2 weeks ago around the time of this posting. I figured, it's her mind her body, and what about in the cases of rape or incest or something like that?

Then I saw this and I am now pro-life:

http://www.180movie.com

On November 04 2011 08:19 Ph4ZeD wrote:


Unintelligent shockumentaries do not contribute to an intelligent discussion.

On November 04 2011 08:24 ch33psh33p wrote:



Posts like this should get a ban.

On November 04 2011 10:31 Dhalphir wrote:
If you don't like abortion, and you get pregnant, don't get an abortion.

If you don't like abortion, and someone else gets pregant, its NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS WHAT THEY DECIDE TO DO, SO SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GO AWAY.

On November 04 2011 08:04 Ir0nClad wrote:
I was pro-choice about 2 weeks ago around the time of this posting. I figured, it's her mind her body, and what about in the cases of rape or incest or something like that?

Then I saw this and I am now pro-life:

http://www.180movie.com

On October 18 2011 22:12 Polemos wrote:
Today in school, a female classmate of mine has duct tape over her face, not speaking out because she is so against abortion. I find this pretty ridiculous. A few people not talking for a day can be a nice relief. An overbearing, loudmouth teenager isn't talking. I really don't this an effective method.

Honestly, what is a few people not talking going to do for the controversy that is abortion in the U.S? Can someone please tell me what not talking is going to do for abortion? Sure, she can express what she believes in, but where is the practicality in this?

On November 04 2011 13:04 koreasilver wrote:

lol

this jumps the shark even before the halfway point by invoking Godwin's. The whole thing is such a hilarious self-caricature; it's as if it doesn't want people to take it seriously.

Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust.

I had grown up with a pop-culture knowledge of World War II, and I had even seen many of the photos of the death camps, with their emaciated bodies stacked like cordwood and the haunted, piercing eyes of the skeletal inmates who survived. But Levi's writings brought the experience home to me—they helped me understand better what the experience must have been like for prisoners.

Their consistent pattern of humiliating and dehumanizing Jews and other perceived enemies of the Nazi state—both before sending them to the camps and after they arrived—told me that, on some level, they recognized that what they were doing was a crime against humanity. Hence their psychological need to make their victims seem less human before exterminating them.

On November 04 2011 08:04 Ir0nClad wrote:
I was pro-choice about 2 weeks ago around the time of this posting. I figured, it's her mind her body, and what about in the cases of rape or incest or something like that?

Then I saw this and I am now pro-life:

http://www.180movie.com

On November 04 2011 13:39 Newbistic wrote:


I couldn't even make it past the Hitler point before closing the video. It goes on forever without coming to the point. I assume he somehow ties it to abortion in the end. He is an idiot for doing so.

If something like this really changed your views on abortion, then you probably haven't thought deeply about the subject enough to even be able to say that you had a view in the first place.

On November 04 2011 13:44 koreasilver wrote:
TIL that it is possible to google what Godwin's law is and yet still completely misunderstand it.

Honestly, what is a few people not talking going to do for the controversy that is abortion in the U.S? Can someone please tell me what not talking is going to do for abortion? Sure, she can express what she believes in, but where is the practicality in this?

On November 04 2011 16:05 Mobius_1 wrote:
Honestly, have you ever seen any such debate end with "I see your point, and I am ashamed I never thought like this, I am now pro-choice/life."?