Abortion similar to Viking baby impalers - Political Forum

YoungBrownConservative · 05-07-2007, 01:22 AM

Note: (I do not mean to make those women who have had abortions feel guilty or evil, I merely present my opinions in a controversial way)

Back in the Viking days of plundering and such, it was common practice to impale infants and young children on swords after they destroyed villages and killed their parents. Now, aside from the fact it's barbaric, I am also lead to believe that not ALL who did this did it just for blood lust. Could it be possible that they were lead by the compassionate position of father and mother-lessness? It's a valid question, being that none of us were alive during that time, nor were any of us vikings(please, no smart assed comments about football teams). I believe that mid to late term abortion is a huge step backwards when it comes to human progress.

Today, many socialists and sick communists,(I will not refer to far leftists and so called "liberals" as "liberals" because they are not liberal in any way IMO, it is a blaspheny to do so.) take the same opinion. Be it a watered down, more edible version, it's basically the same.

Welcome me, I'll be here for awhile.

JackMallory · 05-07-2007, 07:29 AM

Welcome to the forum.
I agree with you basically the same.

Izzibeth · 05-07-2007, 08:56 AM

The majority of mid to late term abortions are done out of necessity whether it be for the health and life of the mother or due to complications with the pregnancy and the lack of viability of the fetus. They are not done on a whim as they are painful, invasive and quite dangerous to the mother not to mention emotionally, physically and mentally taxing.

Most abortions that are done out of "convenience" are done within the first three months of pregnancy.

YoungBrownConservative · 05-07-2007, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Izzibeth

The majority of mid to late term abortions are done out of necessity whether it be for the health and life of the mother or due to complications with the pregnancy and the lack of viability of the fetus. They are not done on a whim as they are painful, invasive and quite dangerous to the mother not to mention emotionally, physically and mentally taxing.

Most abortions that are done out of "convenience" are done within the first three months of pregnancy.

I would hope that's the case, but I don't believe that just because "most" are done out of necessity that there are no women who do it not out of necessity, but for selfish and irresponsible reasons. But you have a point for why it shouldn't be completeley outlawed.

Eddie · 05-07-2007, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YoungBrownConservative

Back in the Viking days of plundering and such, it was common practice to impale infants and young children on swords after they destroyed villages and killed their parents.

What?!?! No they didn`t. Show me one credible source for this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by YoungBrownConservative

Now, aside from the fact it's barbaric, I am also lead to believe that not ALL who did this did it just for blood lust. Could it be possible that they were lead by the compassionate position of father and mother-lessness? It's a valid question, being that none of us were alive during that time, nor were any of us vikings(please, no smart assed comments about football teams).

I`m sorry, but it`s a moot question due to the fact that its historicly innaccurate. That being said, I don`t doubt that the practice of killing of both men, women and children when fighting an enemy was quite common in Scandinavia at the time. But I`m certain it had nothing to do with compassion but the ordinary tribal mentality. If you kill them all, there is no one left to take revenge.

In addition, scandinavians had a practice of setting out unwanted children in the woods in order to kill them off. We do not know how prelavent this practice was, but we do know that it became outlawed sometime after the scandinavians nations where christianed. Why "vikings" would have compassion towards the children of their enemies but not towards their own makes no sense...

YoungBrownConservative · 05-07-2007, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eddie

What?!?! No they didn`t. Show me one credible source for this.

I`m sorry, but it`s a moot question due to the fact that its historicly innaccurate. That being said, I don`t doubt that the practice of killing of both men, women and children when fighting an enemy was quite common in Scandinavia at the time. But I`m certain it had nothing to do with compassion but the ordinary tribal mentality. If you kill them all, there is no one left to take revenge.

In addition, scandinavians had a practice of setting out unwanted children in the woods in order to kill them off. We do not know how prelavent this practice was, but we do know that it became outlawed sometime after the scandinavians nations where christianed. Why "vikings" would have compassion towards the children of their enemies but not towards their own makes no sense...

So you agree that mid-late term abortion is a step backwards then?

We agree.

Eddie · 05-07-2007, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YoungBrownConservative

So you agree that mid-late term abortion is a step backwards then?

We agree.

I don`t really know what "mid-late term abortion" is to be honest. I do however find it peculiar that the abortion question is even an issue in a country that is supposedly modern.

We debate wether we should supply it costless to foreign nationals who are unfortunate to live in primitive and backwards societies where abortion is not allowed, or wether they should be forced to pay for the procedure themselves.

I do however find it rather unfortunate that you feel the need to make unfounded and perhaps even fraudulent claims about "vikings" in order to make a point...

YoungBrownConservative · 05-07-2007, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eddie

I don`t really know what "mid-late term abortion" is to be honest. I do however find it peculiar that the abortion question is even an issue in a country that is supposedly modern.

We debate wether we should supply it costless to foreign nationals who are unfortunate to live in primitive and backwards societies where abortion is not allowed, or wether they should be forced to pay for the procedure themselves.

I do however find it rather unfortunate that you feel the need to make unfounded and perhaps even fraudulent claims about "vikings" in order to make a point...

Sir, you have no clue whether Vikings killed the babies out of compassion or not. You are just assuming as I was. Were you around back then? Nope. Neither was I. And I have never met anyone in the USA that debates about supplying free abortions to people over seas.

Eddie · 05-07-2007, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YoungBrownConservative

Sir, you have no clue whether Vikings killed the babies out of compassion or not. You are just assuming as I was. Were you around back then? Nope. Neither was I.

Of course I didn`t live back then, but you made a claim regarding a "viking" practice that I`ve never heard of. Care to substantiate your claim?

Quote:

Originally Posted by YoungBrownConservative

And I have never met anyone in the USA that debates about supplying free abortions to people over seas.

Neither have I. But I haven`t met that many americans either.

dahermit · 05-07-2007, 12:29 PM

Quote:

I would hope that's the case, but I don't believe that just because "most" are done out of necessity that there are no women who do it not out of necessity, but for selfish and irresponsible reasons. But you have a point for why it shouldn't be completeley outlawed.

Who then, is in the best position to know if the abortion is medically necessary or selfish and irresponsible? Should it be the government, doctors, the pregnant women, or some conservative bible thumper?