It sure as hell is dangerous

The intent is to make this 5- to 10-minute abortion procedure seem dangerous

I think we can all agree that abortion is dangerous. You might think it’s dangerous to something, others to someone, but it is rather designed to be dangerous.

8 thoughts on “It sure as hell is dangerous”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    Regardless of the rights and wrongs of killing foetuses, if that is the right word, what is their point? That opponents of abortion should be forced to show the procedure as a bundle of laughs? That people who think of this as murder should be required to make it look like a bikini-beach party? What? If people don’t like Nazis, they make films about Nazi dentists who are definitely dangerous. Should that be prohibited?

    The Left thinks that talking to a non-Leftist White male is dangerous. And they are not slow in showing it as such. Should that be illegal too?

  2. Spot on, SMFS. I’m not a fan of abortion, but generally opt out of discussions as, well, I don’t have to carry the kid, and my opinion shouldn’t trump someone else’s obligation.

    But: I am against abortion being downgraded from a moral choice to be considered carefully to something more like a bikini wax- personal, a bit intimate, but basically a chore.

    Going in with open eyes should be the least of it.

  3. John square,

    I don’t have to carry the kid,

    This is false. You get to carry the kid for 18 years. Once the kid is born women can put you on the hook for child support regardless of whether or not you wanted the kid. In fact, many women put ALL men on the hook by going on welfare. Women want 100 percent of the decision to have a child, fine, they get 100 percent of the responsibility of having a child. Men should not have to pay women when women decide to have a child.

  4. OT, but see:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3471011/Company-reveals-plans-offer-period-leave-women-month-create-happier-work-environment.html

    ISTM that either women’s periods make them the weaker vessel – in which case they cannot expect equality in the workplace (and possibly should be excluded from certain occupations) – or their periods make no difference to their performance. Menstrual leave strongly suggests the former, yet the feminist attitude is to see this as an advance to greater equality.

  5. @Alex, March 2, 2016 at 3:43 pm

    [i]”John square,

    I don’t have to carry the kid,”

    This is false. You get to carry the kid for 18 years. Once the kid is born women can put you on the hook for child support regardless of whether or not you wanted the kid. In fact, many women put ALL men on the hook by going on welfare. Women want 100 percent of the decision to have a child, fine, they get 100 percent of the responsibility of having a child. Men should not have to pay women when women decide to have a child.[/i]

    Alex, well said.

    Before the “man should wear a condom even if woman says she is on the pill etc”.

    First, that destroys any trust in a relationship and possibility of it becoming long term.

    Second, women who want to have a child have admitted to removing boyfriends’ condoms and cleaning the male organ. Then going to bathroom and using a syringe to inject content of condom.

  6. So Much For Subtlety

    John square – “But: I am against abortion being downgraded from a moral choice to be considered carefully to something more like a bikini wax- personal, a bit intimate, but basically a chore.”

    I don’t disagree with you but my point is even simpler than that. They seem to be demanding that people opposed to abortion should be prohibited from saying it a bad thing. They seem to want to force people who oppose abortion to say it is a jolly, fun, enjoyable experience.

    It is an inherently totalitarian view that does not allow for people to disagree. I don’t think voting Labour is a good idea, but I wouldn’t pass a law forcing people to show that voting Labour might result in positive things.

    Pcar – “Second, women who want to have a child have admitted to removing boyfriends’ condoms and cleaning the male organ. Then going to bathroom and using a syringe to inject content of condom.”

    Boris Becker denied paternity of one of his children on the grounds that the rumpy pumpy he engaged in under the stairs of, I believe, Nobu restaurant in London could not possibly have resulted in conception. That is, she blew him. But it did.

    Still we are way beyond this now. A British man has been found liable for two children conceived after his divorce when his former wife fraudulently obtained a sperm deposit he made earlier. The Courts over-turned his divorce settlement on the ground it did not take into account the needs of the two children. Who had not been born at the time of the divorce settlement.

  7. To strike a contrary note. It seems to me that the issue here is that of the State using regulation to harrass legal businesses (or just legal behaviours). I cannot see any justification for condoning that, even if one is opposed to abortion. Abortion is legal. Regulation should not be used in this manner.

    It brought to mind another example I recently became aware of; apparently the California legislature are seeking to pass a law requiring that porn performers wear safety goggles. This is similar harrassment of the legal by regulation.

    Nobody believes that these kinds of regulations are passed for honest reasons. They are dishonest regulations designed to impede that which they cannot (at least, as yet) prohibit.

    The law is used far too often in modern societies in this underhanded and dishonest way. We should stand against it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *