Creepy Condescending Wonka

Creepy Condescending Wonka Meme | OH, YOU SUPPORT ABORTION? YOUR UNBORN SELF FROM THE PAST WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO HEAR THAT | image tagged in memes,creepy condescending wonka,abortion,time travel | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
14,946 views, 108 upvotes, Made by Wawameme 35 months ago memescreepy condescending wonkaabortiontime travel
Creepy Condescending Wonka memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
[deleted]
8 ups
Creepy Condescending Wonka Meme | OH, SO YOU SUPPORT ABORTION? GO HUG YOUR MOM AND THANK HER FOR ALLOWING YOU TO HAVE THE CHOICE TO KILL BABIES WITHOUT CALLING IT MURDER. | image tagged in memes,creepy condescending wonka | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
I FIND ABORTERS LACK OF INTELLIGENCE DISTURBING | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
2 ups
Not to mention lack of honesty.
reply
4 ups
Leonardo Dicaprio Cheers Meme | FOR THE PEOPLE THAT CAN TAKE A JOKE | image tagged in memes,leonardo dicaprio cheers | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Confession Bear Meme | I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE ARE ARGUING ABOUT ABORTION IF A WOMAN DOESNT WANT A PARASITE GROWING IN HER AND HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF IT FOR THE | image tagged in memes,confession bear | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
8 ups, 3 replies
Because it's not a parasite. It's a human being.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
I think it technically does fit the definition of a parasite. It's an organism that feeds off/gets nourishment from another organism, without benefitting that other organism.
reply
[deleted]
3 ups
In that case, anyone that is under the age of 18, still lives with their parents over the age of 18, or receives handouts from the government is a parasite that should legally be killed.
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 1 reply
BTW, this so called parasite does give benefits to the other organism. The other organism becomes attached to it, cares about it, and even loves it. The movement and feeling of the parasite inside the organism also brings great joy to the organism, even though there may be times of uncomfort. The lose of the parasite unexpectedly can also break great pain and discomfort to the organism. So are you still wanting to call it a parasite just to make yourself feel more comfortable killing it?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
As per your first comment, no, a child is not a parasite because it is not physically attached to the parent like a tick or a leech

As per your second comment, those benefits you listed are emotional, not biological in nature. A clown fish has a symbiotic relationship with sea anemone, a remora has a symbiotic relationship with a shark, etc. a fetus feeds off the mother without giving back any useful biological effects. Am I saying that fetuses should all be killed because of this? Of course not. Unless it's Bad Luck Brian...then it's debatable :p
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
When a baby is breast feeding, it is physically feeding off of the mother like a tick would suck your blood.

And you didn't specify biological benefits being received as a requirement. But as far as benefits that are not emotional, how about you do some research. http://www.parents.com/pregnancy/my-body/changing/benefits-of-pregnancy/
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
I guess he's an exception :)
reply
0 ups
therefore let's argue about it on a humor site
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
How did you come to that strange conclusion?
reply
0 ups
>strange

m8 do god a favor and study biology
reply
1 up, 2 replies
How is its strange? Its the definition of the beginning of human life.
reply
4 ups
There are also scientific articles stating that life begins at conception, and if taking a breath is the only indicator of life, then every time we hold our breath we are essentially dead.
reply
0 ups
So for you, it's necessary to breath in order to have human dignity? Tell me where's the logical connection between the two things.
reply
1 up
if its not a human being then what kind of being is it?
reply
1 up
Maybe the baby is just holding his/her breath up to that point because the environment isn't breathable yet. It's instinct; I went underwater quite suddenly once, and I didn't think to hold my breath, just did it the entire time I was under and never even gave a thought to breathing, just how pretty the surface of the water was. Maybe babies in the womb are having that kind of experience until the function kicks in. Just food for thought. ?
reply
0 ups
Isn't it still the same species? A pig fetus is still a pig before, during, & after birth.
reply
5 ups, 3 replies
reply
4 ups
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
i.imgflip.com/pancd.jpg (click to show)
reply
1 up, 1 reply
gay sex prevents hitler
reply
1 up
And Hitler prevents gay sex
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
no go on, explain how your beliefs should be forced upon my body and that I should be ok with that.
Pro lifers = They only care about you until your born, then food stamps, welfare, headstart, childcare, college tuition and everything else is ignored.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
I'm liberal and Pro Life. I believe that everyone has a right to life and we need to support th middle class. Here's an idea:Don't make comments based off political stereotypes and place millions of people you haven't even met into a box because you're to lazy to judge someone on more than their view on one issue.
reply
1 up
First of all, its called generalization. Its not directed to you specifically, but what the statistics say. Second, who exactly is not having a right to life? Because the fetus in my body at 3 weeks is CERTAINLY NOT a person.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Nobody owes you that stuff. (By the way, I am pro-life and I don't hate you or any other pro-choicers). I hate the fact that innocent people are being murdered in our country, though.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
nobody said anything about hate, but if you force me to have an abortion because its against your beliefs (because thats the only reason, since science says otherwise), then I should force you to live by sharia law. Thats fair.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
But I would never force you to have an abortion.
reply
0 ups
typo, if you force me NOT to be able to have the choice to have one. I would never force you to have an abortion either, so dont force me to continue the pregnancy. :)
reply
7 ups, 3 replies
Also: my unborn self from the past wouldn't be delighted to hear it. But only because neither its ears nor its brain have developed yet.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
It's not the children's fault. And it's not because the right decision implies suffering that it's not the right decision. It costs to be rightful.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Its not a child. its a fetus.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
It's not a fetus...it's an embryo
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
It's not an embryo. It's an...
reply
1 up
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I bet you have loads of personal experience with childbirth and responsibly raising a human being. It does cost to be rightful, but acting righteous is clearly free of charge.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
no but he has tons of experience in having the right to live
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
How about the mother's rights? We only get one life and it's short enough as it is. Which is also why I'm done with internet discussions for today. Just throwing away my minutes here. One final remark though: do you really think it's admirable to *force* a person to sacrifice their own life for - let's face it - a collection of cells that in the first few weeks is hardly as 'alive' as a tree? Even brain activity only starts around the 27th week of the pregnancy. I'd like to see how you'd react if you were in the horrible situation some **pe victims are in. To find out the worst experience of your life got you pregnant and you will be reminded of it everyday simply by looking at your child. Having to sacrifice *everything* you wanted in life to raise a child you never wanted. I can't imagine anyone being so cruel as to wish this upon another human being, the lack of empathy is just staggering. :( Anyway, I hope you're equally strident on the issues of the death penalty, child soldiers and war in general. Then at least you're not as much of a hypocrite as most abortion protesters.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 2 replies
So since you agree with abortion, do you also think that someone who is going to be born with some sort of defect should be aborted as well? Or how about these teen girls that have sex with the entire football team and never use protection, should they not deal with the consequences of their actions and just get an abortion each time they get pregnant?

The number of abortions that take place because of **pe or incest is less than 1%. So tell me how this is humane again?
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
It is too bad you can't hear how stupid you are. Just because someone has a baby, that doesn't mean they have to keep it. Adoption is a valid alternative to murder.

As far as not casting the first stone, that only applies if I am not able or willing to admit my own sins as well.

And once again, just because that girl gives birth to it, that doesn't mean she has to raise it. Is it really better to give someone an easy way out rather than dealing with the consequences of their actions? Thos type of behavior is why people get divorced just because things get tough. Having a girl gove birth to a baby instead of killing it allows her to see what she is really killing, and can help prevent future actions of putting her in this same situation. And yes these girls need help, but they are not going to get that help if you let them get 5 or more abortions a year to "solve their problem".

And those statics were found on 5 different sites in about 5 minutes. So unless you have other statistics that you can provide to prove these wrong, then your opinion about them being wrong is invalid.

But what about the not extreme cases? What if the father of the baby would raise the baby on his own if he had to in order for it to live. Should he not be allowed to have that option because the woman finds it in convenient for her to carry a baby for 9 months and give birth to it? It takes a man and a woman to create a baby. If only women could do it, there would be a lot of pregnant lesbians out there.

And now for your most stupiest comment of all. An embryo is capable of developing and growing. Sperm and eggs are not capable of doing that on their own. So yes it is more alive and human than just a sperm or just an egg. So how about you stop denying the facts and making up lame ass excuses to justify killing another human.
reply
1 up
You seem to have resorted to insults, so I'm withdrawing from this discussion. I will only say that nearly all statistics involving human behaviour are unreliable by the poor statistical features of the research and the simple fact of human nature, and therefore false. I did not mean the numbers themselves were false. Now I hope you have a lovely rest of the week and maybe we can revisit this when you've cooled down a bit.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
why don't I have the right to kill children
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 2 replies
Because children are people. Embryos are not.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
Embryo is a generic term used for any offspring that is still in the development stages before birth. A human embryo is not the same as an elephant embryo just because it isn't born yet, it is still a human in development.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups
The definition of a person is a human regarded as an individual. That doesn't mean they are independent. So if a human embryo is still a human, and it can also be considered an individual, then it is also defined as a person.-- This is an answer. So if you still think an embryo is only an embryo, then prove it with something other than "because it is an embryo".
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
An embryo is only a person in development, so yes it is still a person. If we were to go by your logic, a mentally retarded person is not a person either since they are not fully developed.
[deleted]
1 up
No...they are a retarded person. If they were in the first trimester Ina a womb they would be an embryo. A human embryo, granted, but not a person
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
So if a mentally retarded person is still a person even though they are not fully developed, then why is a human embryo not a person?
[deleted]
0 ups
Because its an embryo. In a uterus. Are really this daft?
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
Just stating that it is an embryo is not an answer. The fact remains is that you realize that it is a human that is not fully developed, and therefor it is a human, but unable to admit that you are wrong. Otherwise you would be able to give an answer other than "Because its an embryo".
[deleted]
1 up
There is no other answer. That is the answer. You keep asking why it's not a person. The answer is "because it's an embryo"

If you asked "why is a dog not a cat?"
"Because it's a dog" is the answer.
That's it. That's the answer.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
Science has gone too far, y'know.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I do not know what to say.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups
You want to know what to say. Abstinence prevents abortions, but people like InfernoKid are not man enough to try it.
reply
0 ups
truer words have never been spoken
reply
0 ups
reply
0 ups
reply
0 ups
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Even Tumblr understands that abortion isn't wrong..
http://the-real-f-word-feminism.tumblr.com/post/117005534434/prismatic-bell-pxyls-rosebud-for-now
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 2 replies
There may be extreme cases in which an abortion can be considered necessary. But there are also stories out there of girls in their early 20s that have had 5 to 10 abortions because they don't want to use protection. For them, an abortion is just an easy out for them to do whatever they want to do and not accept the consequences for their actions.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Ugh, clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. Do you even KNOW what its like for a person to have an abortion? CLEARLY you have NO CLUE. If you think saying a girl would rather have multiple abortions rather than to use birth control, im sorry but you are talking out of your ass with no knowledge of what the f**k you are saying. Having an abortion isnt roses and candy. Its scary, emotionally hard, painful, and because of people like you, comes with regret. If you think some girl wants to go through that multiple times rather than having the guy slap a condom on, you must have an IQ of 5.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
Just so you know, a friend of mine went to an abortion clinic with their sister-in-law, and had met someone in their early 20s that already had 12 abortions. So yes there are some out there that have multiple abortions. So don't tell me I don't know what the f**k I am talking about b**ch.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Yeah you dont know what the f**k you are talking about. So someone was with someone who said something and then that someone told you? Stop the presses, thats got to be fact right there. Once again, NO YOU DONT KNOW WHAT ITS LIKE since you were not there. Second, while I never said that girls would never have multiple abortions, I simply stated that it is not something girls treat as contraception. Here is a fact for you: The study, published in the medical journal Human Reproduction, found that of 300,858 mothers, 31,083 had one abortion between 1996-2008, 4,417 had two, and 942 had three or more abortions before a first birth.
So clearly multiple abortions are extremely rare. Less than 1,000 out of 300,000 and thats only 3, not 12, so that girl must be a Guinness record holder or your friend of a friend of a friend was exaggerating. Not sure why a girl would divulge that info in the first place.
Second fact: more than HALF of pregnancies terminated began while using contraception.
So please, sit back down douchbag.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
Do you no know how obscure those numbers are? First off, you are talking about just over 300,000 first time mothers in a 12 year time period. If you take the average per year, that is only 25,071 new mothers, which is about only half a percentage of all births in the United States. I highly doubt that the percentage of first time moms each year is less than 1%, so your statics is highly skewed.

Next, your numbers are based off of first time mothers. What about the number of women who have had multiple abortions and still haven't had a child? That isn't even in your statistics. So there is a whole different value that you are not even incorporating into the total number of abortions taking place each year.

So when you leave out statistics like these, it is not clear on how rare multiple abortions are. And you are wrong about it being less than 1,000 out of 300,000. The 300,000 was the number used of first time moms in 12 years, not the number who had abortions. If you really want to look at it properly, out of 300,000 first time moms, 36,500 had abortions. So just over 10% of those polled in this obscure poll had at least one abortion. If we went with the low numbers (since we don't know the exact number of abortions that took place of the 942) 36,500 women had a minimum of 42,743 abortions. We don't know how many of those took place in those 12 years, but according to the numbers of the CDC, there were 11,730,014 abortions total in 12 years. So the minimum number based off of your study only covers 0.36% of the total number of abortions. So how the f**k do you think you know anything based off of your statics? So if you really want to start presenting some facts, how about you present something that covers at least 10% of the total number of abortions, at the very minimum. Not even using 0.5% makes your comment invalid and pointless. So how about you sit down and shut the f**k up b**ch.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Ok since you are so lazy to bring your own information, here is the CDC breakdown for ALL recorded abortion statitics in the latest year available 2011. And it comes from a prolife website (http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/) so I am sure its skewed but alas. Out of all recorded data available,women with three or more prior abortions accounted for 9.3% of the total (CDC). Wow. So less than have 10% have 3. Going further since I am unable to find any further data on increasing numbers, I am going to have to go with the statitsical drop. In this case a drop from 53% to 37% 1 to 2, 37% to 9% drop from 2 to 3 or more, would leave me to reasonable expect a additional significant drop with each additional procedure.
Here is a story of a real person, to further show that multiple abortions can happen with no intention of using it as birth control:
"Right after having my first child I found out I was pregnant again but due to the stress of my situation I knew I couldn't take on another child. I terminated at 8 wks 1 day.
Then last year while on BC, I found out I was pg again and decided to have another abortion at 9 wks.
Maybe its just my luck, but last week I found out I was pg again while on BC. The doctor said that one of my medications must of counter acted the birth control. I am in a healthy happy relationship. Next month I will be starting college again to finish my last year. I don't want to have to drop out again. I have no money, no health insurance, no family support or anything to provide for a baby. I thought two was bad enough but now three? I would never have thought of myself being put in this predicament. I am depressed and overwelmed and the only way out seems to be another abortion."
So there, I hardly would count less than 9% of all abortions to be over 2 a issue and I am sure that would fall to 1% after a couple more. If you want to say that its possible a woman could do that, then sure, I concede that. But that was some chance that out of the 1.6 million abortions performed each year, your friend ran into that extreme minority. My point however still stands, that unless you yourself has either had an abortion or been with a partner that has, you have no clue what it is like. Thank you.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
If I wasn't on my phone, I could provide the source for you. But all I did was look up the statistics of the number of abortions for each year between 1996 and 2008. Not that hard to find those numbers, which then all I had to do at that point was basic math.

But here let me use your own statistics for a minute. Webster defines multiple as anything more than 1. So that means multiple abortions would not only be the 3 or more category, but the 2 abortions as well. So that means the total of multiple abortions is nearly 50%, or 46% based off of your info. That means multiple abortions is not rare.

As far as your little story goes, there are 2 things wrong here. First thing is that this story would not have fallen under the original statistics you gave before on the 1996 to 2008, as she was already a mother before having any abortions, as far as we know. 2nd, if she was really not wanting to risk getting pregnant, THEN SHE SHOULDN'T BE HAVING SEX..... PERIOD. Everyone knows that birth control is not 100% effective, so if you really don't want to risk it, don't do it.

And once again, it doesn't matter how much the percentage drops at 4 or 5 or 6 or more abortions. Anything more than 1 is considered multiple, which is almost half of all abortions. Which this also means that the majority of all women who have abortions is over half. So the problem is with those that have multiple abortions.

And I don't need to have an abortion or know someone who has to need to know what it is like, because it is simple, ALL IT IS IS MURDER, the killing of an innocent human life. So to make it simple, no none of your points stand because you only look at the small picture, not the whole thing.
reply
0 ups, 3 replies
You may want to go refresh what started this. No one said anything about how many women have multiple abortions. This started because you said that women use abortion as a form of contriception, and I believe these figures prove that wrong (with possible extremes). Second, I said that you do not know what it is like to have an abortion or to be in that position. Both of these points I made are still valid and still stand. You may have your All of it is Murder thing but thats not the point here whatsoever.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 2 replies
"Please cite this, I see no scientific documentation for this." ARE YOU F**KING BLIND???????? I linked the exact same website you did. If you are now not going to accept it because it proves you wrong, then maybe you need to site a different source yourself. Here let me post the link again in a way where your dumb ass can see it.

*********http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/********

"No I can say for certain that if I polled 1000 people about why they had sex, not all 1000 people said they had sex to make a baby lol." What is your f**king point? If the dumb b**ch already had to f**king abortions and didn't want to go through another one, then maybe she shouldn't be doing the action that could put her in a position to need another abortion. My point still stands, if you want to guarantee with 100% certainty that you are not going to get pregnant, DON'T F**KING HAVE SEX. It is that simple. Abortion should not be used as an out because you think you need to have a good time. It is just like if you don't want to risk killing someone when you are drunk, don't get behind the wheel, and if you don't have another way to get home, then don't drink.

"Lol totally agree with this, not sure what your point is." The point is that you just stated in a previous comment that you don't believe women use abortion as a contraceptive. Well if birth control is a contraceptive and it is used to keep from getting pregnant, then abortion is a contraceptive that is used after the fact.

"I would very much like to know where you found statistics that prove women choose abortions over using contraceptives, which may I remind you again, DOUCHBAG, is what this convo was about." And, YOU F**KING C**T, I posted the link but you are too f**king blind and too f**king stupid to see it, even though it is the exact same link that you posted earlier.
0 ups
1. I know I have been debating, which is why I decided to stop and go back to making memes which were for the purpose of being funny.
2. Debating is technically allowed, but it can get very annoying when you can hardly tell the difference between the comment section of this site and the comment section of some news site where a 5 page long debate is raging.
3. Once again, I'm saying that these wars are annoying because this is a site for memes, not debating, and lately many of the front page memes have been overtaken by memes about the latest controversies, politicians or other issues, and some other people have been unhappy about this as well.

I enjoy a good debate as much as anyone--I can sit back with popcorn or I can jump in myself--but I'd like to do it on a site meant for arguing. Ok?

Now, everybody be absolutely quiet for a moment... I sense another comment war in the near future...
0 ups
Can we all just shut up?! Honestly, this is a MEME SITE. Remind me where it says the definition of a meme is something that is meant to inspire agonizingly long flame wars.
This is not a debate site, but if you really want to continue this conversation, please take it to debate.org or something. I am sick and tired of seeing funny front page memes being replaced by flame wars.

And on another note, watch your language. There are some young people on this site, and that's why memes with that kind of language are marked NSFW. So please don't throw that around in the public comments section.
Thank you.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
No your points do not stand. As I stated previous, you dumb b**ch, multiple is defined as 2 or more. So that means of all women who had abortions, 47% of them had multiple (meaning 2 or more) abortions. And if you want to go through even more statistics, http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/, here you can see that only 1% of all abortions in 2011 were of **pe victims. Unmarried women counted for 85.5% of all abortions. So when you combine all of this, along with the most common reasons for abortions being "On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI)", abortions are being used as a contraceptive. I am not saying it is the only contraceptive they use since "51% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.", but yet there is still the "8% of women having abortions have never used a method of birth control". But I can state with 100% certainty that abortion is being used as a contraceptive because IF THEY DIDN'T WANT TO GET PREGNANT, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE SEX. Abstinence is 100% effective against pregnancy. So it doesn't matter if I know what it is like to have an abortion or to be in that position because the facts don't lie. Women use contraceptives to keep from getting pregnant. If they still get pregnant and don't want the baby for one reason or another, they get an abortion.
0 ups
"8% of women having abortions have never used a method of birth control"
Please cite this, I see no scientific documentation for this.
"IF THEY DIDN'T WANT TO GET PREGNANT, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE SEX"
No I can say for certain that if I polled 1000 people about why they had sex, not all 1000 people said they had sex to make a baby lol.
"Women use contraceptives to keep from getting pregnant. If they still get pregnant and don't want the baby for one reason or another, they get an abortion."
Lol totally agree with this, not sure what your point is. I would very much like to know where you found statistics that prove women choose abortions over using contraceptives, which may I remind you again, DOUCHBAG, is what this convo was about.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Alright, I am stepping in to say that at this point, both of you need to stop. This is a site for memes and laughs, so if you two REALLY want to keep this flame war going, take it to debate.org and start a real argument. And post the link if you do, please; I love a good argument, but only where it's appropriate.
I would just like to try to keep this place a fun site where we come together as a community to fight trolls, make each other laugh, etc etc...

Thank you very much.
[deleted]
0 ups
Aren't you the pot calling the kettle black. You have been here debating people as well about the issue of abortion. So maybe you should take your own advice and go to debate.org and stay there.

Remind me where it says that debating is not allowed here. This meme isn't even on the front page, so I don't see how you can claim that this "flame war" is replacing anything.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
I know. But there are people who say all abortions are wrong. Unfortunately, we can't just make it legal for cases like that to be legal and not just lazy abortions. So banning abortion isn't the right answer, because it's taking away their rights just because of a few idiots.
reply
3 ups
I believe abortion should be legal if it's to save the mother's life. It's one thing to save a life at the expense of a day of labor and giving birth. It's another to force someone you don't know to sacrifice their life for someone else's.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups
A few idiots? The number of abortions in the US is nearly in the millions. Less than 1% of those abortions are of **pe victims or incest. So the few would really be the ones you consider it to be ok, not the other way around.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
reply
9 ups, 2 replies
reply
6 ups, 4 replies
Think about it. Would you rather:
1. Die with no fear nor pain
2. Live in an orphanage, where the only thing you can do is stare at the roof (and never get adopted).
reply
4 ups
Human dignity, which makes that we have no right to kill an innocent person, doesn't depend on the quality of life this person has. And I'm sure the orphans kids don't want to die in general.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
My point was if you don't want a baby, don't fool around.
reply
3 ups
Or responsible.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
*cough* It's called using protection *cough*
reply
1 up, 1 reply
are you not smart enough to know birth control is not 100% effective?
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
Do you not know that birth control pills aren't the only form of protection? If you use condoms AND birth control, it's pretty much a million to one chance that you'd end up with a baby. And if you were to insist on messing around often, then you should be aware that, yes, it is a risk, so they should be relatively prepared. I'm not saying they have to build a nursery, they just should have some money saved up if they plan on nurturing the fruits of their marriage commitment.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Marriage commitment? Who said anything about them being married? Why would they need to be married again?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Again, if you plan on having sex, and don't want a kid, you should use protection. Otherwise, you just put yourself--and your baby--in a bad situation. You want to fool around at 17? Sure, fine. Not my future I'm screwing up. However, if you don't plan on raising a child, then for god's sake, your sake, your family's sake, and your possibly future child's sake, buy protection. Please.
0 ups
AGAIN, please read facts and statitics. Go to any pro-life website and it will tell you right on there, 52% of terminated pregnancies were conceived while the mother was USING contraception.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Let's say that someone uses birth control and condoms. Make it as safe as they can get it. It says when taken correctly, birth control pills are 99.9% effective. Condoms, when used correctly, are 98% effective. Therefore, when used together and used correctly, the chances of pregnancy are 1/979020.
Now, the U.S. population is approximately 3.19 million. Let's say that half of that population is men, and since we have people who are too young or too old, plus some who may not be having/want to have children, let's say that 1/3 of that number is the number of women who will have kids. 1/6 of 319 million.
That makes around 53,166,667 women. Now let's multiply that by the number of times when both forms of birth control fail.
So now we have 53 instances of failed birth control. Let's say 70 percent of these ladies decided they didn't want to have the baby. Sounds reasonable. That makes 37 babies.

If we take a look at some statistics showing the reasons why women have abortions, most are things such as, "It would change my life" or "I didn't want people to know" or "We don't have enough money" or "We have relationship problems"... etc. If those 37 women who aborted their babies made up half of the abortions that went on, then what about those other women? What happened to them? If every one of them decided to use protection, even just one form, 37 lives could be saved. And as for the others, what if some of them had rethought their decision? Maybe waited until they were a bit more financially secure, or until they had a better relationship with their spouse, etc etc. Got to a more stable point in their lives.

I knew a girl in high school who was expelled for being caught with drugs on campus. She was 17. The next year, she came back to school, not to study, but just to visit. She was in her second trimester. Apparently she had moved in with her boyfriend. Had she had an abortion, she might have become depressed, and I believe that though that baby may have caused problems, it may also change her life for the better. Sometimes you need something to learn what it means to care for someone and learn responsibility. I have a feeling her life has a chance of turning around for the better.

I think of life like one huge tapestry. Everyone contributes, though it doesn't look like much, and one tiny thread could change the entire thing. What if things were different?
0 ups
So then I would recommend you take your effort and use it to advocate for more access to birth control. Wouldnt that be better? Instead, in the last decade, birth control has been harder to obtain. Attempts at defunding Planned Parenthood, allowing companies to restrict insurance to cover BC, and teaching abstinence only education all would statistically decrease BC use and therefor increase abortion and unwanted pregnancy rates, which I think is painfully ironic.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
The_Colorful_Cat, there's this thing called **pe that can cause women to get pregnant too.
reply
2 ups
Less than 1% of abortions are because of **pe.
reply
0 ups
I addressed that in some meme comments, actually. Abortions should be allowed only in cases of **pe and medical emergencies, such as ectopic pregnancies where the mother's life is in danger and there is no other option.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
You don't know that they don't feel pain. I think people just made that "fact" up to alleviate guilt.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Yes, I'm not sure if they feel pain. On the other hand, how are you so sure they feel pain? You can't prove shit.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
[deleted]
1 up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozUZzuzBCMc
You watch this and tell me that a baby feels no pain and that this is humane.
Or maybe you should read this article and tell me that it is still better than being sent to an orphanage, http://unbornhumanrights.blogspot.com/p/abortion.html
reply
4 ups
reply
3 ups
Flip Settings
Creepy Condescending Wonka memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
OH, YOU SUPPORT ABORTION? YOUR UNBORN SELF FROM THE PAST WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO HEAR THAT
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back