Houston rapper says abortion is "a necessity"

[gabosaurus]

I might be a liberal, but that doesn't meant I can't believe people like this are loony as a fruit cake.
This is a guy whose music advocates degrading women and has three kids with different mothers (I use the term loosely).
And no, it is not a racial thing. It's a stupidity thing.

http://www.29-95.com/time-suck/story/slim-thug-calls-abortion-necessary-if-parents-arent-together

[avatar4321]

Unfortunately, rappers tend to think like this. Which is why the only ones I actually like are guys like Will Smith. He wont do anything that would be a bad influence for his kids.

[jimnyc]

The majority or rappers make their lyrics around the "shock effect". Kanye West is now dating that idiot Kim Kardashian. He's soon releasing a song called "Perfect Bitch" and has already stated it's about her. And it's already making waves, solely because it's shocking. Rap has always been that way, whether from a white rapper or black. If you ever read the lyrics from even the top 50 rated rappers you would laugh, It's horrible and repetitive. The only one worth listening to is Eminem. Red his lyrics without listening and you'll see they are all stories of his life growing up. I wouldn't waste my money on hi "music", but at least the majority of his lyrics somewhat make sense outside of shock value.

[aboutime]

Look at it this way. If those of us who are so dead set against Abortion really used our heads, and thought out our intentions, and desires.
We wouldn't have all of the problem Idiots like West, or those Foul Mothed RAPPERS around if we AGREED to let ABORTIONS take place.

In fact. If we sided with Abortion, and welcomed ROE V. WADE instead of trying to repeal it.
There's a good chance. OBAMA would never have been delivered, and we'd have a Real Human Being in the White House...or at least, someone with a BRAIN.

[revelarts]

I might be a liberal, but that doesn't meant I can't believe people like this are loony as a fruit cake.
This is a guy whose music advocates degrading women and has three kids with different mothers (I use the term loosely).
And no, it is not a racial thing. It's a stupidity thing.

http://www.29-95.com/time-suck/story/slim-thug-calls-abortion-necessary-if-parents-arent-together

What he says is just one of the natural conclusions of the the thinking that help make abortion legal in the 1st place.

'Women shouldn't have to have children if it's a burden.'
this guy is practically paraphrasing Marget Sanger and the early eugenics.

As far as his music I'll take your word for it it says stuff like that. Which is again just the natural conclusion you get when we toss out the idea of Chasity, monogamy and virginity as "old fashion" and "repressive". in favor of free love and if it feels good do it.

Not sure what we'd expect guys to do but find as many willing females as we want and love um and leave um. Sex is for pleasure not for families or marriage at least not until you want to. And if you don't want to, well just have Fun can't be frustrated. that's crazy.

That's what the the whole culture is taught. not sure why this guys living up to some of the potential of that thinking is so shocking in that context.

And there are plenty of socalled smart people that feel exactly the same way as that guy. and worse.
There are more than a few university professors who claim that the populations needs to be reduced from the 7 billion plus we have now to less than 5 billion. not sure how we get there with abortion and some eugenics . they say there's needs to be "hard choice" made.


so called medical ethicist are starting to give moral cover for the that's fit for Hitler.
A medical journal made this point, ---not on the Pro-Life Side-- it Explains WHY IT"S OK TO KILL A NEWBORN as well as the Unborn. Oh and the Journal's general Aim is "to help doctors to make better decisions. "



The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. "

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

ABSTRACT
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not
have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing
that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the
same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that
both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3)
adoption is not always in the best interest of actual
people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth
abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all
the cases where abortion is, including cases where the
newborn is not disabled.

….
CONCLUSIONS
If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for
the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an
abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of
the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has
any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the
same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the
killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of
a newborn.
Two considerations need to be added.
First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment
at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and
we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be
necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In
cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for nonmedical
reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on
the neurological development of newborns, which is something
neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.
Second, we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good
alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best
option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if
a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something
went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or
psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the
offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then
people should be given the chance of not being forced to do
something they cannot afford.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... s-say.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html)

[revelarts]

"Criminal' abortions arise from a perverted sex relationship under the stress of economic necessity, and their greatest frequency is among married women." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3. Margret Sanger

Planned Parenthood's Goal:
Dr. Lena Levine in 1953, concerning Planned Parenthood's purpose and planned course of action: "... to be ready as educators and parents to help young people obtain sex satisfaction before marriage. By sanctioning sex before marriage we will prevent fear and guilt. We must also relieve those who have these ... feelings, and we must be ready to provide young boys and girls with the best contraceptive measures available so they will have the necessary means to achieve sexual satisfaction without having to risk possible pregnancy." (Planned Parenthood News, Summer 1953) ." ("Psycho-Sexual Development," quoted in Planned Parenthood News, Summer 1953, pg. 10)
Most professionals and volunteers associated with Planned Parenthood have accepted, for a long time, the necessity of abortion as an integral part of any complete or total family planning program.
Richard D. Glasow, Ph.D. "Planned Parenthood 1969-1972: Assuming an Activist Posture on Behalf of Legalized Abortion." National Right to Life News, January 31, 1985, page 6.




I support Roe v. Wade. We must target zero abortion by improving the social and economic conditions of women (eg. health care, prenatal care, child care and pay parity) such that no woman is economically coerced to have an abortion. We know this will lower the abortion rate.
2006 Congressional National Political Awareness Test Aug 1, 2006
<center>
Senator Barbera Radnofsky

</center>

I don’t think government has the proper role in forcing a woman to have a child or forcing a woman not to have a child. And we’ve seen that around the world. This is something that should be privately decided with the family, woman, all the other private factors of it, but we should work toward preventing the necessity of abortion.
Ralph Nader (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader), Interview on ‘Meet the Press’ May 7, 2000



I predict the possibility that eventually coercion [in population programs] may become necessary. [Such force may be required] in areas where the pressure is the greatest, possibly in India and China.


Planned Parenthood spokesman, quoted by Richard D. Glasow, Ph.D. "Ideology Compels Fervid PPFA Abortion Advocacy." National Right to Life News, March 28, 1985, page 5.
It will be difficult to control world population if contraceptive methods are not combined with abortion ...


Benjamin Viel, M.D., International Planned Parenthood Foundation, 1971.
Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger, proposed an "American Baby Code (ABC)," which included the following articles;
Article 3. A marriage shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.
Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.
Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

Margaret Sanger. "The American Baby Code." The American Weekly, May 27, 1934, pages 3 and 4. Quoted by Randy Engel during United States Senate hearings entitled "Declaration of U.S. Policy of Population Stabilization By Voluntary Means, 1971." Special Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Labor & Public Welfare, United States Senate, 92nd Congress, First Session, on S.J.R. 108, August 5, October 5, 8, and 14, and November 3, 1971.
Planned Parenthood has also seriously proposed much more recently the following population control measures for the United States;
• institute a substantial marriage tax;
• provided bonuses for delayed marriage and childbearing;
• require women to work but provide few child care facilities;
• reduce or eliminate all maternity leave or benefits;
• limit or eliminate public financed medical care, scholarships, housing, loans
and subsidies to families with more than a certain number of children;
• compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock pregnancies;
• stock certificate-type permits for children;
• payments to encourage contraception;
• payments to encourage sterilization;
• payments to encourage abortions; and
• compulsory sterilization for those who have had two children.

Memo dated March 11, 1969, entitled "Examples of Proposed Measures to Reduce U.S. Fertility by Universality or Selectivity of Impact." From Frederick S. Jaffe, Vice President of Planned Parenthood/World Population, to Bernard Berelson.




People have been saying stuff like the rapper for quite some time.
And Yes it is Stupid and wrong.

[gabosaurus]

I take severe issue with the idea that life begins at conception. Life begins at birth.
Even there, I believe abortion should not be allowed after the first trimester.
I also take issue with men believing they have the right to legislate when happens with a woman's body.

I find it odd and more than slightly hypocritical that those who feel that there should be fewer government regulations are constantly trying to introduce new government regulations.

You want to see fewer abortions? Provide better sex education. Give all women access to birth control. Remove the age-old double standard that sexually active men are "studs," while sexually active women are "sluts." Teach boys that it is not OK to harass girls, beginning in elementary school. Teach boys that it is not OK to pressure girls for sex. And teach girls that, if a boys pressures them for sex, it is OK to kick them in the balls. :cool:

[jimnyc]

I take severe issue with the idea that life begins at conception. Life begins at birth.
Even there, I believe abortion should not be allowed after the first trimester.
I also take issue with men believing they have the right to legislate when happens with a woman's body.

I find it odd and more than slightly hypocritical that those who feel that there should be fewer government regulations are constantly trying to introduce new government regulations.

You want to see fewer abortions? Provide better sex education. Give all women access to birth control. Remove the age-old double standard that sexually active men are "studs," while sexually active women are "sluts." Teach boys that it is not OK to harass girls, beginning in elementary school. Teach boys that it is not OK to pressure girls for sex. And teach girls that, if a boys pressures them for sex, it is OK to kick them in the balls. :cool:

I take severe issue with too many women who use their bodies as a tool, determining whether a man can be a father or not, or determining to abort the mans child. I understand what the prevailing law is right now and have no choice but to respect that. But I don't have to respect women that make such choices without their partner. It takes 2 to get to a certain point and a woman should have enough common decency to continue things as 2 to determine what steps should be taken next. If someone should ever bring forth some sort of legislation on this front, protecting a mans right to have an equal say, I will back it in a heartbeat.

As for education, they should do more to teach women about responsibility, and that there are 2 people involved generally should she find herself pregnant. Teach them to talk with someone, and hopefully one of them is their partner, and maybe counseling, before they make a selfish decision.

[Voted4Reagan]

JUST ANOTHER REASON TO NOTICE THAT YOU CANT HAVE CRAP WITHOUT THE WORD RAP! :dance:

[Shadow]

You want to see fewer abortions? Provide better sex education. Give all women access to birth control. Remove the age-old double standard that sexually active men are "studs," while sexually active women are "sluts." Teach boys that it is not OK to harass girls, beginning in elementary school. Teach boys that it is not OK to pressure girls for sex. And teach girls that, if a boys pressures them for sex, it is OK to kick them in the balls. :cool:

Sex education has been around for years and years. Women have had access to free birth control for years and years also.

I'm all for teaching boys that it is not OK to harrass girls for sex. As long as you teach girls it's not OK to use sex as a weapon...or as a tool get what they want from men.

[revelarts]

I take severe issue with the idea that life begins at conception. Life begins at birth.
Gab you might take exception to it but it's just the medical facts. medical textbooks make it clear.



Even there, I believe abortion should not be allowed after the first trimester.
As the medical "ethicist" said in what i quoted above. Once you decide that it's OK to kill after conception what's the real reason to stop even after birth? Your line of "1st trimester" is arbitrary -drawn in the sand- and not based on anything morally different in the biologically living growing child.

.


I also take issue with men believing they have the right to legislate when happens with a woman's body. I've NEVER understood that argument gab. It's the child who is in danger of being killed. you don't understand why men want to protect children? Even in the womb?
If the life of the mother is at stake that's a different story. If not she does not have the right to take a child's life for her convenience.

.


I find it odd and more than slightly hypocritical that those who feel that there should be fewer government regulations are constantly trying to introduce new government regulations.

Laws against murder = too much gov't? really? You've never heard that from me.
I'll vote that much gov't everyday of the week Gab.

[aboutime]

I take severe issue with the idea that life begins at conception. Life begins at birth.
Even there, I believe abortion should not be allowed after the first trimester.
I also take issue with men believing they have the right to legislate when happens with a woman's body.

I find it odd and more than slightly hypocritical that those who feel that there should be fewer government regulations are constantly trying to introduce new government regulations.

You want to see fewer abortions? Provide better sex education. Give all women access to birth control. Remove the age-old double standard that sexually active men are "studs," while sexually active women are "sluts." Teach boys that it is not OK to harass girls, beginning in elementary school. Teach boys that it is not OK to pressure girls for sex. And teach girls that, if a boys pressures them for sex, it is OK to kick them in the balls. :cool:


Knock it off gabby. We all know from experience. You take a severe issue with anyone, anywhere who doesn't agree with you, or admit to you. They are all wrong, while you are always right.
Guess you haven't figured it out yet. Most all of us take severe issue with you. Merely because you demand, and remind us how ONLY YOU think you are smarter than all of us.