digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Pro-Abortion Ad with Coat Hanger Uproar in NYC

wcbstv.com — The ad causing controversy depicts a coat hanger and takes a stance on abortion, along with the slogan: "Your closet space is shrinking as fast as her right to choose."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • demicritter, on 10/10/2007, -107/+23Only a NYC liberal would find this to be an effective advertising theme.
    • Koldkompress, on 10/10/2007, -16/+13I personally think it's pretty funny. Not great advertising, but for "Wait, he said WHAT?" humor, it's pretty cool.
    • PhoenixAvatar2, on 10/10/2007, -3/+33You realize that all this controversy is going to help them. That's what controversy is, free advertising.
    • Rahodeb, on 10/10/2007, -14/+6Yeah, I don't know if the pro-abortion folks want a wire hanger as their symbol either. It's kind of a "keep it legal or we'll start skewering the little suckers with a wire hanger" kind of message.
      • capiCrimm, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Why not? It's simple and effective.

        http://www.tshirthell.com/images/contestpics/a08_003.jpg

        he shirt says Abortion Tickles, BTW.
        • wendelgee2, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Jesus ***** Christ. NSFW!!! *****.
          • mightydavefish, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Maybe you should be working if you are at work instead of wasting time on the interwebs.
      • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -19/+8"We'll start skewering the little suckers"

        For one thing they are humans you insensitive piece of *****.
        • netdroid9, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15No more human than sperm or ovum, and I don't see people going on a crusade every time someone uses spermicide.

          It's a woman's right to choose whether the next nine months of her life are going to be ravaged by a parasite that, if the condom hadn't broken, wouldn't be there anyway.
          • careyt, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2that's *****. the moment there is potential for life no one else should decide if they can live but themselves, and they can't talk yet so the child should be allowed to live and make thier own choice. THAT is the real choice, not whether the mother can escape responsibility
          • thepotatoman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1You do have to remember that by the time its conceive it does have its own dna. In my opinion that makes it something separate from the body, a lot more then a simple body part.
        • Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6@careyt (because of stupid digg comment system)
          Potential is meaningless. POTENTIAL means it doesn't exist yet, it just might someday, if it doesn't spontaneously abort of its own accord, if it isn't born premature, if it doesn't wind up being born in time to experience meth withdrawal. Potential and two dollars will get you a cup of coffe. Come back when you have a real argument against abortion. Not screaming and wailing about all the lost potential.

          Personally, if this ad causes one idiotic pro-lifer to lose sleep, I'm happy about it. You damn well better consider coat hangers when you try to push modern women back into the June Cleaver "your job is to have babies no matter how you might feel about it" role.
          • timbellomo, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Scientifically, it is a unique human entity. Society has placed a value on that entity and has stated that it is not as important as a woman's right to choose whether to support said entity.

            Also, it's not parasitic; it's the natural course of human reproduction.

            Just cause pro-lifers don't want some one to die, it doesn't mean they think all women should stay home and care for babies all day. It just means THEY DON'T WANT SOMEONE TO DIE.

            Before you start changing the subject to Iraq or the Death Penalty, know that this pro-lifer always been against both of those things as well.

            Bottom line: the ad is tactless; it makes light of pain on both sides of this issue. It's using the idea of a woman dying horribly to sell storage space. (BTW, the whole "women will die of coat hanger injuries" campaign is about as truthful as the "douching with Coca-Cola will cause a miscarriage" campaign. I don't believe there's been one confirmed case of a woman dying while trying to administer a self-induced abortion via "coat hanger". Nevertheless...
      • StarlessKnight, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14The wire hanger is one of the original symbols of the abortion movement. Why? Because illegal abortions could often be done by desperate woman deprived the care of off-shore doctors (the rich got that privilege), which would involve the use of a wire hanger that might not just result in severe injury to either fetus or pregnant woman, but death to one or both. It's also similar to the Crucifix, wouldn't you say? Gruesome method of execution used as a championing symbol for one's cause. Sticks in the mind.
        • timbellomo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Except that there were no cases of wire hanger abortions (or subsequent deaths) reported to the CDC.
      • fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Pro-abortion and pro-choice aren't even remotely the same thing.

        I don't know anyone that is pro-abortion.
        • treecha02, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5i wish i could digg your comment infinitely. i HATE it when people refer to pro-choice people as pro-abortion. there are many many people who are pro-choice but wouldn't choose an abortion for themselves (myself included).

          in a related note, we should start calling pro-lifers "anti-choice."
        • skyteria, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Abortions for all! [crowd boos]
          Very well, abortions for none! [crowd boos]
          Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others! [crowd cheers]
        • happytron, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I'm pro-abortion. If there's any doubt about whether someone wants to have a child, they should probably have an abortion.
        • 42h6Fh62h, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1So tell me how this works? You say:
          There is nothing "wrong" with having an abortion.
          You, OF COURSE would like there to be fewer of them.
          WHY?????
          If they are NOT WRONG, then there is no logical reason to desire fewer.
          And if there IS any reason to desire fewer, there MUST be SOMETHING about them that is "questionable"????
          So why would anyone who "questions" it be an *****????????????
          • treecha02, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It is possible to disagree with something personally but still believe that others have the right to decide that for themselves. It is possible to be pro-choice but still support alternative options being presented to people. Just because abortions disagree with my personal morals doesn't mean I think that everyone in the country should abide by my moral compass.
          • fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3In addition, whenever anyone speaks of banning abortions, they immediately start listing the exceptions to the rule. You know... rape, health risks to the mother, etc.

            You know what it means when they start listing exceptions? It means government involvement. Government involvement means bureaucracy.

            I'm against letting some government clone get involved in something that should remain a personal decision.
          • 42h6Fh62h, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0If I may,.....
            Please note how neither felt the need to call me an *****, stupid, oppressive, radical-right, Christian, Republican, neo-con, etc.
            THIS is ALL that I personally ask. Let's TALK about this. It IS a difference of OPINIONS. And NO ONE has a claim to being absolutely, beyond question "right".
            Thank you for the "civility".
    • gropo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+26Heh check out what this dickface wrote a week ago in regards to the flooding we had: (again, first post, as though he stalks NYC stories)
      "I have no sympathy for the city-dwelling NYC crowd. These are people who eat their own young, are incredibly rude and believe the world revolves around them. A good cleansing of the entire city is in good order and this was a good first step."
      Somebody has some serious inferiority issues...
    • themastersb, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Obviously people dont have a sense of humor
    • raoulduke87, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14Jesus, man. Once again, you baffle me. I responded to your fantastically compassionate quote about the flooding we had when you posted it and I'll respond to this too. What the *****, mate. Did New York kill your father and rape your mother? What is your ***** beef? I'd love to find out where you live and sic a bunch of Brooklynites on you. You ***** child.
      • thegreeneyedkri, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1word.

        Bronx wants in on that too!
    • tonaros, on 11/14/2007, -0/+6And on the other hand, huge vans parked on the street near the Metreon in San Francisco on Mother's Day displayed ten-foot-tall bloody partial-abortion fetuses. My baby sister couldn't sleep for the next couple days. I'm pretty sure a coat hanger, no matter what it IMPLIES, is a lot less offensive than what is basically no more than snuff photography.
      • vonnegut, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1 That's not snuff photography, its just what abortions look like. You have to see it to know how bad it is. Girls scratching out their babies with coat hangers is not good either. Abortion is quite ugly and dangerous. Too bad people can't be more responsible with their bodies.
        • Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Its an appeal to emotion. And as such, in the war of ideas, its meaningless. Unless you are somebody who believes if we shout loudly enough and fervently enough it will make it true.
        • jitterbits, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Snuff photography would be defined as photos capturing death, either natural, accidental or intentional. Should it be presumed that you are saying it's not snuff because it's neither death nor murder?

          Fair enough.
    • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2lol liberal bashing... what a moron...
    • mightydavefish, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1That's almost as stupid as your nick.
    • TheReport, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3"Only a NYC liberal would find this to be an effective advertising theme."

      No, actually its effective advertising period, hence why we are currently discussing it
      • chuck3330, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1even as a pro-life person, i respect the freedom of speech this company has a right to. as long as you can afford the billboard you should be able to put what ever you want on it in terms of political views.
  • CHICSINK, on 10/10/2007, -76/+9One could surmise that they are advertising thier facility for storage of the dead, aborted babies that "her choice" produces??
    • mlbrennan, on 10/10/2007, -12/+32or one could surmise that this company believes in the separation of church and state
      • michael4lsu, on 10/10/2007, -40/+9There is nothing in the Constitution regarding "separation of church and state" in the first place. Besides, abortion is not just a "church" issue anyway. It is a Constitutional issue. People are "CREATED" equal, with inalienable rights - not "BORN" equal! We are created at conception. Any embryologist will tell you this, as well as anyone with common sense. Another point is that people are granted rights in as much as they do not infringe on the rights of others. No woman should have a right to choose whether or not another innocent human life lives or dies, because that infringes on THEIR rights! Anyone who believes abortion is acceptable is as sick in the head as Hitler was. Abortion is a holocaust 10 times worse than the Nazi's was.
        • luther70, on 10/10/2007, -6/+16So you are for outlawing IVF clinics and passing laws prohibiting pregnant women from doing certain activities. Oh wait never mind you invoked Hitler so your arguments are automatically discredit.
        • atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14'There is nothing in the Constitution regarding "separation of church and state" in the first place. '

          Yes there is, its called the Establishment Clause.
        • whiskeysquared, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11The term "fair trial" isn't found in the constitution either, but the meaning and phrasing have been upheld to constitute fair trial. And if you hadn't skipped history class to get to bible study, you would know that Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the constitution, third president and the most important of the founding fathers wrote about the "wall of separation". To liken a womans' right to choose to the holocaust is propagandized BS. Your personhood at conception jargon is a religious belief and is not biologically provable. Your stance on abortion is really dependent upon what fairytale you believe in. Had you been jewish, you wouldn't hold the same beliefs as they think life begins at birth. Your interpretation of the constitution is subjective to mold to your stance.
        • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4additionally, the supreme court has ruled that the constitution doesn't prohibit abortion, in fact it prohibits laws prohibiting abortion ... but of course michael4lsu knows more than the supreme court about the constitution
        • compdude32, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1Hey atheinostic why don't you read the document before quoting it.

          "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

          Nothing there about the seperation of church and state, mearly says that congress cannot pass a law about religion (i.e. they cannot outlaw a religion or establish a national one), they most certianly can pass faith based laws.

          And also abortion is not a religous issue, it is an issue of common decency. If you would read the documents that established this country (which you clearly either haven't or lack the ability to comprehend words on paper) you would see that you have the right to life from the moment you are created, not from the moment of birth, or the moment your viable out of the womb, but from the moment you are created.
        • DaSuHouSe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@compdude32 did you make that comment without looking up the Establishment Clause. Let me explain: the Constitution grants the Supreme Court final authority on the interpretation of the Constitution. The opinions of the justices carry heavy weight in Constitutional law, and when the Supreme Court rules that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion," and state "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State'," then you damn well better take notice.
          • PjsPjs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes and that was done to protect the Church.

      • Yoshi39, on 10/10/2007, -9/+19If Abortion is such an awful "holocaust 10 times worse than the Nazi's" what isn't conception where millions of potential babies (sperm) die but only one survives.
        • benfraley, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4many forms of contraceptive prevent the egg and sperm from joining, thus no conception.
        • sh4rkb1t3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Make that trillions.
      • ScrewedThePooch, on 10/10/2007, -10/+18I'd rather be aborted than be raised by parents who don't want me or be put in a foster home.
        • djvchris, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4And I'm sure SOME fraction of the 1.6 million adopted children in the country agree with you. But what about those who are leading happy, fulfilling lives in adoptive or foster families? I personally know quite a few.
          • careyt, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1I agree with you. having been adopted myself I see no good point to abortion. give the damn baby a chance to live instead of being a selfish bitch so you wont get fat.
          • Azio, on 10/10/2007, -0/+524% of all youths ages 12 through 17 admitted to foster care programs are juvenile delinquents, and 24% of males are incarcerated within 18 months of aging out of foster care. A significant number of kids living in foster care commit suicide. And that's with the current level of strain on the system. So I'm just wondering, if you idiots get your way and women are forced to carry pregnancies to term, and just give their kid up for adoption at the end, where all those unwanted babies are supposed to go, other than into the already-crippled foster care system?
        • jackkerouac, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7I'd be happy to abort you right now.
        • adam84a, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Wow, that's a pretty elitist statement there. So you're saying that kids that have uncaring parents or are in a foster home are better off dead?
          • jitterbits, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No. They said that they would prefer to be dead than raised by someone who didn't care about their well-being and/or was abusive. Putting words into the mouths of others doesn't help you look more well reasoned than them, ffr.
          • kayala, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1but isn't there a difference between "dead" and "never having existed"?
            you wouldn't know the difference.
    • skankme, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Did you see a sign on my lawn that read dead aborted baby storage?!
      • jesswa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dude, I'm sorry, but whoever dugg you down has absolutely no sense of humor and/or never saw Pulp Fiction.
  • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 10/10/2007, -5/+88these ads are predominantly in Chelsea, which means chances are they are offending no one in the area.
    • michael4lsu, on 10/10/2007, -81/+10So I assume Chelsea is an area full of nothing but degenerate amoral Nazi's who see nothing wrong with women infringing on other people's right to life by slaughtering them piece by piece in their own wombs without any sedation or pain killers and then tossing them in the trash can. Hitler treated the Jews better than women treat their own babies growing in their womb when they choose to participate in the abortion holocaust.
      • mlbrennan, on 10/10/2007, -11/+29comments like this are borne of ego and nothing more - you think you are a superior human being to someone who disagrees with you - how Arrogant - How Wrong of YOU!!! What an embarassment to this country you are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        • nepawoods, on 10/10/2007, -10/+8Who's sounding like they think they're superior now?
        • whiskeysquared, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Still michael4lsu.
        • shaun1018, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'm better than all of you, but you don't see me blathering on about it...

          wait, look what you cretins made me do!
      • Koldkompress, on 10/10/2007, -9/+58Apart from Jews were real, living people. Early abortions (The only kind I agree with - do it before the kid has consciousness in my opinion) are just a bunch of cells. A spider has more of a personality then a fetus, but I don't see you campaigning for the rights of a bath-tub spider.
        • skankyBacon, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1Bath-tub spiders don't continue to grow and display sentience.
          • Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You would deny them the chance?
          • skankyBacon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1@Afreyt (I get the "session expired" error when I try replying)

            There is no chance. A human fetus is different than a spider. Crazy, I know. All I'm saying is that when you conceive, you're not creating a random lump of tissue...the process is the same, from zygote to fetus to whatever else you want to call it to infant to child to adult. Terminology aside, what you're destroying is going through that same, well-defined process. You're not removing a tumor or lancing a boil.
          • Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Oh so you know what its like to be a spider. To know that they aren't sentient, and a fetus is.

            Get off it, you're not God. You're an arrogant know it all ***** who not only wants to run his own life but everyone elses because your gut tells you that a fetus is sentient and a spider isn't.

            Whatever. I have no desire to listen to you, it just makes me angry, so I'll do my part by canceling your vote at the polls.
          • skankyBacon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Whoa, take it easy there chief. Just because I disagree with you on something doesn't make me "an arrogant know it all ***** who not only wants to run his own life but everyone elses." Seriously, where did anything about running people's lives come in?

            All I'm saying is that a human life has more value (at least to me) than a spider's. A human fetus, regardless of what attributes it technically does or does not have, is distinct from other "lumps of tissue." It is not going to remain a random lump, nor is it going to turn into a spider, or anything else besides follow the standard path of human prenatal development (birth defects and such notwithstanding). If you don't believe it is a human yet, it is still the beginnings of a human, and it will turn into nothing else, and nothing else will turn into a human. By destroying it, you are halting the process of human development, and I just think that once started, that process should be allowed to complete. I'm not saying anything like it's murder, or fetuses are fully sentient, or anything like that; just that it should be dealt with responsibly *before* conception.

            That's all I'm saying. That is why I am pro-life. Notice how I'm not slinging insults at you, or losing control of my temper just because we have differing opinions. If you can control yourself, and if you read this despite the topic being a few days old, feel free to respond; I'd love to debate this further.
        • Homunculiheaded, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5"Bath-tub spiders don't continue to grow and display sentience."
          That's not true, you just haven't waited long enough.
          • skankyBacon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1No, actually it's just because there has yet to be a single case of one doing so, and 0 evidence that would suggest it's a possibility.
          • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Go look up 'evolution' in the wiki.
            Then come back with an answer that isn't borne out of your ignorance, brainwashed belief in a god, and your everest sized ego.
          • skankyBacon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1At what point did I say anything about a god? Way to make assumptions.

            I wasn't referring to something on the evolutionary scale. Clearly we're talking about a single spider here, and therefore a single spider's lifespan. A spider (currently) grows from an egg to an adult spider, and that's it. That's where the process stops. Afreyt above seems to think a spider might be sentient...whatever. I don't think I'm alone in saying a human life > a spider's life.
      • ScrewedThePooch, on 10/10/2007, -9/+35Their undeveloped brains cannot comprehend pain or suffering. This has been proven many times. Do research before spouting your Nazi *****.
        • nepawoods, on 10/10/2007, -17/+5"Their undeveloped brains cannot comprehend pain or suffering."

          Would it be OK to kill a newborn infant with an overdose of morphine (no pain or suffering)?
          • geometry, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16The way I see it is that when the fetus can survive outside of it's mothers womb is when it becomes a child.
          • IRoaChI, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5If the infant was riddle with decease, brain damage or organ failure. I would want it done to me if I ever ended up in a vegetative state.
        • thenativeraver, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1Only if it was your kid, and it was someone's revenge on you for sniping people off in halo 2.
        • djvchris, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Then it must be pretty damn hard for them to sign a release authorizing their own physician-assisted suicide. Must have a helluva time holding the pen.
      • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 10/10/2007, -3/+24you deserve to be aborted for using nazi equivocation tactics in an argument regarding anything!
      • Bajeda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19Nevermind that many women will get abortions anyways if it is illegal, meaning they will be putting themselves at risk doing so on the black market, and others will just use the coat hanger shown to do it themselves. I'm guessing you are a huge proponent of the war on drugs and think society would end if gay marriage, prostitution, or drugs were ever legalized.
        • adam84a, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6"many women will get abortions anyways if it is illegal" You're right, probably no where near the genocidal rate we have now but still some. That is why I personally believe that any Christian with a pro-life stance, should be equally concerned with increasing the general quality of life of and creating a more accepting society for the mothers that are likely to have an abortion. I think making outlawing abortion unnecessary would be a much better accomplishment for our society than just outlawing it.
        • IRoaChI, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9@adam84a.

          When was the last time you adopted a crack whores trail trash kid and did the right thing for them. Oh, sorry I forgot, your 'MORAL' high ground doesn't mean YOU actually have to practice what you preach, you just have to preach and it makes it all better.

          /mumbles to self.. f n religious freaks.
        • adam84a, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@ IRoaChI
          I'm not sure why you're so angry at me, but I would be the first to admit that I am not perfect and that there are too many people who are willing to talk the talk but not walk the walk so to say. My greatest hope is that this is something that changes in our society, I really believe if we helped each other despite social and economic barriers that we've constructed that we could solve the vast majority of our society's problems. Sorry if that sounds idealistic, but that is a very strong conviction of mine.
      • Smuikas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Actually, um, chelsea is filled with: models who wouldn't get pregnant in the first place because it would ruin their figure, and gay men.
        • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1this is why i want to move there. no competition for the straight male!

          also the views from the rooftops are awesome, especially around sunset.
      • staplez, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Wow does no one come fron NY besides Smuikas? The only people having sex in Chelsea is men, if you didn't figure it out they're gay. Pregnancy doesn't happen. Unless men get pregnant soon.
      • rspeed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Godwin's Law!
      • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5michael4lsu is unintelligent piece of trash
      • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0.
      • MarkOfTheDead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Abortion Holocaust = awesome band name.

        i call fives.
      • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5You are so proud of the fact that you can trash every woman on earth without ever having the risk of being a hypocrite. Because you wouldn't do that if you were a woman, would you? You self righteous loser. If you were born with ***** and you got pregnant with no means to support a child, your opinion would change instantaneously. Hell, your opinion would change if you knew somebody, ANYBODY, who got pregnant and couldn't go through with it. Abortion is an awful thing, sure, and it should be as rare as possible, but the alternative (government-legislated forced pregnancy) is FAR more disgusting.
        • Perrin0Killer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Actually, my opinion wouldn't change at all.
    • mraustin1337, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7People are too sensitive and easily offended no matter where you do.
      • osbjmg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's a different kind of sensitive, you silly goose.
  • sjl127, on 10/10/2007, -55/+12I hope they go out of business.
    • mlbrennan, on 10/10/2007, -9/+10get a life!
      • sjl127, on 10/10/2007, -24/+5You only have a life because your mom didn't abort you. Now suck on that, you dick.
        • geometry, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11That's doesn't mean his mother was Pro Life jackass. I hate that damn argument.
        • IRoaChI, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I bet you feel so good knowing your mummy didn't want you as a child. It must have been nice sitting there and having a mother who didn't love you or want you but had to keep you because her ***** noisy neighbors are pro lifers and can't handle the fact that people can choose and life isn't god given.

          by they way. How do you feel about the death sentence, your for it right? You know they were once fetuses too.
          • chuck3330, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0i'm pro life in both cases. i would like to see inmates be forced to contribute to society though because i hate the thought of them getting food and board for free. i would love to see the return of chain gangs only with out the racism.
        • Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What an idiotic reply. If I didn't have life, I wouldn't ever suffer, and I wouldn't care about any of this. The only reason I'm here, is because there are people around who care about me and want me around. If not even my mother wanted me, I think I would rather not exist. Chew on that, moron. You're condemning these unborn fetuses into a childhood of being unwanted. Or are you going to adopt them and love them?
      • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3That's kinda the whole idea!
  • LifeguardMom, on 10/10/2007, -78/+17Women today need to stop accepting the garbage that Planned Parenthood and NARAL are flinging at them. Abortion is DETRIMENTAL to the overall health of women in general. This whole "right to choose" is a load of horse manure. Abortion is never good for a woman - physically, mentally and emotionally. Why don't these organizations ever do research on this? Studies in England and Australia confirm that women who have a family history of breast cancer are 50% more likely to get breast cancer after having an abortion because it sends a woman's body into hormonal chaos. If PP and NARAL are so pro-woman, they should start doing the research and prove that a woman's overall health is much more important than dropping your pants for momentary satisfaction.
    • acp101010, on 10/10/2007, -9/+62That's a load of garbage. I had an abortion at 22 and am glad I did so under the circumstances. It did not harm me physically or mentally, and I have gone on to have a happy marriage and two healthy children with a supportive partner. The claim that abortion, by a qualified doctor, causes women physical problems and mental problems is just untrue. There government's own data has never found any link between abortion and future mental or physical problems. By the way, far more women experience severe depression after giving birth (post-partum depression) than after abortion - so if the real concern is a woman's mental health, one actually would provide warnings and extra mental health support for women who give birth and become mothers.
      • djvchris, on 10/10/2007, -7/+10Not to scoff at your own emotional resilience, but I spent a while at Abortion Counseling Centers a few years ago, and many women do not cope with it nearly as well as you did. Many of them did indeed develop detrimental psychological issues following the termination of their pregnancies. I don't think hormonal problems (usually stemming from new-onset clinical depression) were that unlikely, either.
        • IRoaChI, on 10/10/2007, -1/+62 of my close friends have had abortions, both turned out fine. one is now married and is expecting next week. The other is happy with your boy friend working in the UK. If either of them had kept the babies, neither of them would be living theirs life's they way they are now. With the first lady, she is now a teacher and she wouldn't be able to provide a loving home and good surrounds to bring up her new child if she had the first one at 15..
        • millyuns, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0What kind of abortion counseling centers, in other words is it (anti) abortion counseling centers or one that is sponsored by say planned parenthood? That might sway your results.
          • djvchris, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Um...post-abortion counseling...no religious or political affiliation.
        • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Well I'm sure the women who had an inability to cope with an abortion would have done great if they had raised that child they apparently weren't able to support and were not ready to have. I guess if they're unhappy now that's proof that abortions should be illegal.
          • djvchris, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1You're right. What the hell is wrong with those women...becoming emotionally upset about one of the most significant decisions of their lives. Those nutjobs!

            Please reserve your thoughtless oversimplifications for less trivial social issues.
      • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -28/+3Well that must just be great. Hope all your family dinners and vacations and fun times are great, while your dead baby decomposes in some landfill. Bitch.
        • OMGWTFROFLMAOx2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14And I suppose you're willing to take care of all the unwanted children that would be born should your desire to ban abortions be fulfilled? Or would you whine about how much of a strain they're putting on our society like the rest of these hypocritical conservative religious fuctards
          • Dewhead, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2The waiting list for adoptions is very long and many people would love a chance to have a baby. I don't understand why you find it necessary to call people hypocritical conservative religious fuctards because they are opposed to abortion.
          • IRoaChI, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Because these aren't the same people trying to adopt the babies. These are the ones they are creating babies in the first place by removing sex education, contraceptives, intellectual discussions and allowing the information to be freely available.
        • scoot2006, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5After reading that, I want to abort your life right now. *****.
        • IRoaChI, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4***** YOU ARSEHOLE. If only we chould choose who should be aborted then you could get rid of scum ***** like you.
      • skankyBacon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Got any evidence to back any of that up, acp? Sources?
      • compdude32, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1Ah yes the very scientific method of study: "well when I did it"

        Just because your mind is twisted enough to cope with the murder of your child doesn't mean that it is the norm. I would be willing to bet that your mind would have no problem killing either one of you two children now either.
        • millyuns, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4compdude 32,
          How many babies have you adopted? How many abortions have you had? Thought so! I bet you're for this war on terror that you wouldn't fight in as well, hypocrite! Try walking a mile, huh. You need to spend a little time around the public medical facilities in your area and then maybe you can talk.
        • Syric, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Oh, God forbid someone forming an opinion on an issue based on her personal experiences... if only people listened blindly to what other people told them, then the world would truly be a better place.
        • snafuhalitosis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2that's a really stupid thing to say
      • snafuhalitosis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1that's a really stupid thing to say
    • DaveV, on 10/10/2007, -18/+5You are an idiot who believes what ever lies suit your twisted morality.

      STFU and go away and die.
    • ScrewedThePooch, on 10/10/2007, -5/+40I tend to believe that having an abortion after being raped would be less traumatizing to a woman than having to give birth to her rapist's baby.
      • skankyBacon, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1It's as much her baby as her rapist's. And I fail to see how stifling the birth of a child is less traumatizing after a rape than welcoming a new life into the world. Something good coming from something horrible.
        • MarkOfTheDead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5until it makes the same face at you that the rapist made when he was violating you.

          i'm sure things really get put into perspective then, huh?
        • OMGWTFROFLMAOx2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Because every time the mother looks at the child she's reminded of when she was raped. She would probably hate the child since it is a reminder of how she was violated. Now you have a child that is hated by it's mother, and that doesn't benefit a child's development
        • OMGWTFROFLMAOx2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1double post
        • Perrin0Killer, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0I agree with Bacon completely. The baby did nothing wrong to the woman, the rapist did. For some reason women think that killing a baby that they don't want is better than giving it to an adoption center. Doesn't make any sense to me. And don't give me that crap about how "it's not a baby, it's a piece of tissue" 'cause that's BS and you know it.
        • Syric, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4@skankyBacon, why don't you try both and tell me which is more traumatizing. Carrying a baby, going through labor and childbirth, changing your entire lifestyle for the sake of a pregnancy--don't try to convince anyone that that's easy to do. No woman should be forced through that by a rapist. The rape was bad enough.

          @Perrin0Killer; I have yet to be convinced that a zygote or blastula is a person. If I considered them to be people, I'd be against killing them, but I don't, so I'm not. They're not even really organisms the way I see it. They have potential to become them, and given of time they could develop into organisms (yes, indeed, people), but by that logic, every sperm and egg cell has potential as well and should be preserved. A person has to draw the line somewhere, and yes it gets fuzzy, but I can say unequivocally that the first trimester of a pregnancy is well before where I personally draw the line, well before it gets fuzzy, and so I can support without hypocrisy early-term abortions.
        • Perrin0Killer, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0@Syric; You're right, there is a time where someone draws the line. My line, however, is right before the zygote is made. Yeah, I believe in that whole 'life is conception until death' thing, and I didn't want to pull out the stats unless I had to. The majority of abortions happen after 8 weeks (correct me if I'm wrong, it's about that time). A baby or fetus, they are, in fact, the same, has a beating heart after 3 weeks of pregnancy. I don't know about you, but I'd take that as clear proof that it's a living being and not just some zygote.
          • Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2My heart may well continue to beat for a while after I'm braindead, and a bunch of heart cells will beat just fine in a petri dish. I can hardly consider that evidence that there is anything worth keeping alive in either of those circumstances.
          • Perrin0Killer, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0Well, they're completely different circumstances. Being braindead is different than having a brain that isn't fully developed. And, yes, heart cells will beat just fine in a petri dish, but will they regulate other organs? I didn't think so.
          • Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No they are not. Anti-abortion people like to think in terms of what MIGHT happen to something, how it MIGHT develop into a person. But thats an abstract concept, and its not what is here now. What is here, now, is an unthinking mass of tissue with a rudimentary foci of contracting cells "that is not fully developed", As opposed to a fully developed brain that isn't working and won't get better. Thats the difference, one might get more developed and one might not. But they both aren't developed NOW.

            So no, you are unabashedly wrong about this, and your argument doesn't hold any water. That embryo, with its "beating heart" is no more a person than those cells in a petri dish. Those cells in a petri dish could grow into a person TOO, given the right environment, but you would have no trouble putting them into an autoclave and terminating their potential.

            You didn't think, is what you didn't do.

            I never want to have to ever be responsible for an abortion. But I will not tell somebody that its wrong based on my gut feeling about it and in opposition to my higher thought functions about what is real and what is a made up fantasy of the future.
          • Perrin0Killer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0What the hell else MIGHT it develop into? A chicken? A stapler? The genetic code of the fetus, as you call it, tells that it WILL develop into a human being living outside the womb. And because it WILL become the image you depict as a baby, that morally makes the 'thing' you're killing a baby. And who cares if it's now or later? That baby, in which you are so insisting women have to right to kill, WILL usually have a fully developed brain and functioning. And if it doesn't, it will more than likely die during the pregnancy, not only once again bringing up my point of 'conception to natural death', but, and I hate to say this, it would save the woman tons of money on an abortion. I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, YOUR argument doesn't hold any water, and how did I not think? At least my comments are understandable whereas yours are an utter mess of words in an attempt to sound intelligent. I mean, human heart cells do not self generate. Tell me an environment on earth, or anywhere, for that matter, where a few beating heart cells in a petri dish will turn into a breathing, walking, talking person. Once again, I don't think you can.
    • Bajeda, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16Considering drug use and prostitution hasn't gone away or even declined throughout human history despite numerous authorities trying to ban them over the years, what makes you think you can just stop people from having abortions by banning it? You will still have people having abortions except it will be even less healthy for the women as they will go to unprofessional blark market locations to do so, putting themselves at risk. Great thinking there buddy.
      • Perrin0Killer, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0Yeah, 'cause when abortion is banned and it becomes even more unhealthy, loads of women will want to have them because it's even more dangerous. Dumbass.
    • expliquezvous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Women with a family history of breast cancer are close to 50% more likely to develop breast cancer simply by HAVING BREASTS. And the "hormonal chaos" you're saying occurs after an abortion is nearly identical to the "hormonal chaos" in post-partum women. It's being pregnant that disrupts a woman's natural hormonal balance out of necessity to sustain the pregnancy. Ending it by live birth or termination makes no difference. I second ScrewedThePooch: the emotional trauma of carrying a baby to term that was conceived through rape or sexual assault is inflicting further punishment on someone who was already victimized.
    • violetice, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9"Abortion is never good for a woman - physically, mentally and emotionally."

      I'd like to point you towards http://www.imnotsorry.net/
    • geometry, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18"Women today need to stop accepting the garbage that Planned Parenthood and NARAL are flinging at them." Yeah, great idea. Stop accepting facts and start going to church where you're told what to do and think without reasoning.
      +1000 for you buddy
    • KraftDinner101, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11I'd love to see you have to tell women or even little girls who get raped that they HAVE to give birth to their rapist's baby. What if your daughter was impregnated by a pedophile? I think your views would change.
      • iloveGod08, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1You put the baby up for adoption, killing someone isn't the answer. I can't comprehend how if someone hates the thought of capital punishment then why should a BABY WHO DID NO WRONG die either?
        • Syric, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Where did capital punishment get into this? It's not just about taking care of the baby after the fact; carrying and giving birth to a baby can, in themselves, be traumatic experiences.
        • Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3There IS NO BABY. Its a bit of tissue the size of a paperclip! If the woman is raped and waits six months for the abortion, sure, there's something wrong with that, but we're talking ***** RU486 and you idiotic religious morons even have a problem with that. You are incapable of thinking with the one organ in your body that was made for it and instead you're taking your gut reaction "OMG, ITS A BABY" and yelling murderer at these poor women.

          Because GOD told you it has a soul at conception. Or you FEEL like it must be a person. For the love of reason, THINK about what you are asking for. I wish all of you would magically be transformed into pregnant women against your will. I would LOVE to see your reactions, and how you carry yourselves then. Its all well and good to preach how wrong something is when its not you needing to deal with it.
      • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Hey iloveGod, a lot of people can't spend a year of their life producing a baby for Joe Rapist. But really that's not even the point. Life begins at BIRTH, and ends at DEATH. Something that is not born cannot be killed. I'm not saying fetuses are lifeless, but to compare it to a baby is blatant emotional sophistry.
    • reapergun9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I don't think you full understand the concept of choice. Let me explain for you.

      By giving women the right to CHOOSE whether or not to have an abortion is NOT the same thing as saying "yes, you have to have an abortion" or "no, you can't have an abortion, it's illegal." It's a choice. Meaning that other women can do it if they so choose, but you can do whatever the ***** you want. Because it's your choice, and nobody else should give a ***** about what you do.
  • Errik, on 10/10/2007, -62/+5Am I the only one who noticed the coat hanger? I don't think its there to symbolize closet space...
    • abid786, on 10/10/2007, -4/+21You fail at life. Try again.
    • Jargonaut06, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12There was a coat hangar? Wow I think you are the only one who caught that.
  • Errik, on 10/10/2007, -54/+4Am I the only one who is paying attention to the coat hanger? I don't think it is there to talk about closet space....
    • Koldkompress, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Your perception amazes me.
    • chawkie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20I like how you made sure to post it twice, just so everyone notices how smart and clever you are...
      • Errik, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7yes please take notice to my obvious mistake, and thank you for pointing it out. I am quite proud and hope to do it again.
    • DaveV, on 10/10/2007, -13/+4Is there some reason you posted twice, dumb-ass?
    • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4How did you catch that? I had to look twice. Good eyes!
  • spacekicker, on 10/10/2007, -40/+4ugh another piece of crap advertising. People should boycott them. And for those that scream censorship, look up the word.
  • StephJ, on 10/10/2007, -21/+134I find it funny that Kiera McCaffrey of the Catholic League says, "These billboards, we think they're absolutely disgusting." Has she ever seen some of the vile garbage the Catholics like to show us all on the way to brunch? Graphic Fetus shots blown up 200%. These people have totally outer limits. I think the hanger gets the point across, but probably not to these neo-con psychopaths.
    • luther70, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18Agreed. I had to deal with this in traffic where they had a van plastered with these images all over in congested traffic.
    • Detritus, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4While you're correct in most of your statement, Catholics have nothing to do with NeoCons.

      Kiera needs to stfu and sit down. Just because she's too fat and ugly that no one would ever give her a choice doesn't mean she needs to worry about the choices of others.
      • johnpaul191, on 10/10/2007, -2/+91) in cities like NYC, Philly, Boston, DC, Baltimore there are a ton of anti-choice Catholics that try to do these shock and awe campaigns about abortion. i can't speak about the rest of the country, but they are the predominant in your face branch of christianity in the NorthEast.
        2) you are trying to discredit somebody because you don't like how they look, and that means you have no valid argument.
    • KraftDinner101, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Those people are the real sick ones. I've seen more graphic images being held by old religious people fighting abortion rights than I've ever seen in any ad/movie/show in my life. Hypocrites really get my blood boiling.
      • mattyG, on 10/10/2007, -12/+2Um first of all, more people are affected by it when they see what happens to a baby during an abortion. There is nothing wrong with showing what the outcome of a "choice" is.
        • millyuns, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4And some people are affected by it when they see the lancing of a boil. There are few if any medical procedures that people just love to watch. I think, however the point he was trying to make is that the anti-choice people get sick and disgusted seeing a coat hangar but are okay with blowing up a picture of a dead fetus and showing it to everyone who can see. See definition of hypocritical.
      • Shawn4168, on 10/10/2007, -13/+2Way to totally miss the point of those signs. The signs are there because they demonstrate just how horrible and disgusting an abortion truly is. If you're so disgusted by it, why do you continue to support it? You should talk about hypocrites...
        • archimago42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10No, the coat hanger symbolizes what women must resort to when they lose the right to choose. Thus the reason the right doesn't use the coat hanger symbol. Maybe you should learn something, anything, before speaking.
        • millyuns, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0nada
      • calbff, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8@mattyG and Shawn4168:
        Good logic, you self-righteous bastards. People are mutilated and killed by car crashes every day, so lets put billboards of decapitated and mutilated corpses all over the place to stop people from speeding. While we're at it, let's put billboards with closeups of sexual diseases too, because those can be prevented by safe sex.

        ***** the both of you.
        • calibration, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Actually, I would support that (anti drunk driving too. :)
      • Pyroteq, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@ calbff - You should see some of the Australian anti-smoking ads...
    • EarlOfLade, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3It's not like the RC has a long history of sexual abuse, no sir not the catholics, no.
    • catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5How do you know she supports graphic images of dead fetuses?
    • Perrin0Killer, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Nice try, but the majority of Catholics aren't the people doing this. (I would know as I am Catholic.) Most of the people doing that are extreme baptists, and every Catholic I know does NOT support the people with those signs.
      • mrkmrk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6The majority of liberals aren't doing the hanger-ads, either. There. Moot point.
      • 42h6Fh62h, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1No, it's not moot. The TRUTH is NOT moot. And the single greatest obstacle to any concensus on this social JUDGMENT CALL, is the refusal by those doing the screaming to TELL THE DAMN TRUTH. Partial-birth abortion claims (yes that term is EXACTLY correct) are no more provable than life at conception. They are BOTH beliefs, opinions, SUBJECTIVE. And people need to stop treating their personal OPINIONS as undisputed truth.

        Read through these rants and see how many generalities are levied against entire groups (mostly Catholic). Truth is only "moot" because the ones talking have no concern for TRUTH.
    • murphygr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8catholic league ASSSSEEEMMMBBLLLLEEEE
    • Syric, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Seeing how disgusting a fetus is might serve to convince people that they, indeed, are not human. The uglier something is, the easier it is to kill.
      • StephJ, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Sorry, but birth itself (however beautiful) is also pretty nasty stuff. Blood, fluid, etc. You want nastiness? Check out the lives of all these unwanted children in 8 years or go watch the latest legal proceedings against all the foster parents up on murder charges for beating their charges to death.
    • dicerandom, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4The best part is that the ad isn't even really pro-abortion, it's anti-anti-abortion. The association I made was that if abortion is made illegal women who are desperate enough to pursue one anyway will be forced into the back-alley "coat hanger abortions" that are referenced in the ad.

      So, of course the catholic league chick is pissed: the company is pointing out the horrible things that happen if you continue to restrict legal access to abortions, which is exactly what she's trying to do.
    • rfolkerts, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6The pro life people are the worst with "disgusting" ad's Last year at the Woodward Dream cruise in metro Detroit a group rented a fleet of ad trucks and put the huge blown up dead fetus shots on these trucks. in a completely public and family oriented event.
      • StephJ, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0We no longer attend the Woodward Dream Cruise for this very reason! Especially if you have children! The last thing you need while you're watching the classic cars is a 500x larger than life abortion in your face.
  • hansjurgen, on 10/10/2007, -28/+3The marketing/advertising industry is being run by a bunch of creative freaks! They don't know how to produce effective advertising, so they have to produce obnoxious advertising. And they think that's cool. And this kind of advertising has been driving intelligent folks away and only appealing to idiots that don't have the money to buy the product anyway. I say boycott the advertiser and maybe they'll fire the agency that created this obnoxious advertising. FIGHT BACK!
    • randallm, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6So you're saying to boycott the pro-choice movement, they'll fire their ad agency, and then they'd attract smarter people to...have abortions???

      Hicks are so lol!!
      • Shawn4168, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Hicks are so laughing out loud? What the hell does that mean?
    • HunterTV, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What are you a ***** design major or something?
      Way to totally miss the ***** point.
  • thegreeneyedkri, on 10/10/2007, -5/+53I do not see anything wrong with the add. It was supposed to be witty and uses the coat hanger because it works for both themes-your closet and the fact that people got abortions before they will legal and will keep doing it, representing the "back alley" abortions. They should be allowed to make a statement about something if they want. They are free to do so. If people don't like it, then they just don't have to store stuff with them. Plain and simple.
    • svenathon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12I'm not sure I've ever seen a longer way of saying "Oh, a pun!"
      • thegreeneyedkri, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yes, well unfortunately after reviewing other comments I realized things might need to be spelled out for people to understand them.
    • theseaweedking, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Fight abortion! Ban wire hangers!
      /sarcasm
    • calbff, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Don't say that too loud. These days, I wouldn't be even slightly suprised if some radical pro-life government official wasn't thinking exactly that, and is currently drafting legislation.
    • cjhowe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I don't see what the outrage is about. They're suggesting a direct correlation with her right to choose with shrinking closet space. They're talking about shoes, duh.
  • Falldog, on 10/10/2007, -4/+37I don't know what the issue is. It does exactly what a billboard needs to do and captures your interest.
  • dryanal, on 10/10/2007, -9/+46Thank you Manhattan Mini Storage. If I still lived there, I would rent storage from you solely to support you.
    • lordsandwich, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19I know where I'M storing my pile of dead babies!
      • richbleak, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I knew there was a dead baby joke here somewhere. Keep up the good work. BTW, does anyone know the difference between a dump truck full of bowling balls and a dump truck full of dead babies?
        • EvilDr.X, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9You can't unload a truckload of bowling balls with a pitchfork.
        • nirav72, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!! not to knock babies..I have 2 myself. But that was funny!! Good to see people not getting bent out of shape like all the pro-life zealots posting here today.
          • LonesomeFighter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2well i won't "knock babies" because I was once a baby myself.
    • richbleak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4With a username like "dryanal" I will digg up any comment you ever leave. Especially ones condoning the antagonizing of morons.
      • millyuns, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You should not poke fun at Dr. Yanal!
  • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -18/+41As far as the Anti side goes...
    It should ALWAYS be a choice for women, if your against it, don't do it! But you have no say over what other people do with their bodies... I don't understand why these nutbags want to ban Abortion... When it's regulated and done early enough, there is nothing wrong with it. These same people, want to force rape victims to have the children of the person who raped them... -_- ***** assholes. Possibility for life to form, means nothing...

    Freedom of Choice! This is America! =P

    That being said, the ad, intentional or otherwise, was in poor taste... lol
    • knde, on 10/10/2007, -6/+27What really irks me about the anti-abortion crowd is their (in my opinion) very faulty logic of, "Oh we want to protect the fetuses right."

      That's all very well and good. A commendable effort in fact, but if LOGIC trumped emotion, you’d think they'd start by protecting the rights of babies and children who already EXIST! You know the babies who aren't being properly taken care of by their drug-addicted mothers, the ones who are abused by alcoholic fathers, the ones who have no one to help them etc.

      I'm all for protecting children and looking out for them. I have conservative views on abortion myself, but quite frankly until there isn't a need for my help/charity in protecting actual living children I'm not inclined to deny any woman her right to abort a fetus.
      • ConservoHippie, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4Say all the nasty things you want about the Catholic Church, but at least they have consistency. Seamless garment: respect life at all times. Including protecting kids in abusive households, etc.
        • Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Tell consistency to the Spanish Inquisition.
          Oh, and how the priests protect altar boys (yeah, I went there)
        • lunasunshine, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7What about people on death row? I thought Catholics were generally for the death penalty.
          hmm, consistency not-so-ez?
        • luther70, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Except when the church is th abusive household then they are for raping alter boys and hiding the perps.
      • KraftDinner101, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Consistency? How about the consistency of ignoring whole sections of the Old Testament? Like the parts that say women should be stoned if they have their period.
        • mattyG, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1Seriously. Take a Bible class or talk to someone who knows about the Bible. Christians aren't bound by OT laws anymore, but of course you just keep spreading the lies.
          • Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Because the Old Testament is not the infallible, unchangeable word of God (anymore). God only made those rules for other people. One wonders why anyone bothers to even read it any more, since none of it means anything now that we have the new covenant.
        • 42h6Fh62h, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Give up. If they stop calling you a hypocrite, they may see all of THEIR hypocracy.
    • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2Uh, yeah that WAS in bad taste "lol"

      Sure are tongue in cheek aren't ya, while talking about dead babies
    • mattyG, on 10/10/2007, -15/+3If your against the death penalty, don't get one!

      yeah. great argument isn't it.
      • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3wow that argument sucked... way to use false comparisons... thanks for contributing... not... =P
    • Shawn4168, on 10/10/2007, -17/+1Yeah, because killing a baby is totally going to solve everything, and make that rape go away. Way to punish the baby for being a victim of circumstance, you douche.
      • hooksie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9An undeveloped fetus is not a baby, tool.
      • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3exactly hooksie....

        Plus why should a rape victim be forced to suffer 9 MORE months, at the hands of her rapist? especially if she's young... Way to force her life to be ruined... -_-
    • iloveGod08, on 10/10/2007, -15/+3More people die every year to abortions than heart disease+cancer put together. The latter people will spend millions on to try to cure, the former all people need to do is send a letter to their congressperson. Abortion is killing, or else what other way is their to see it?
    • enri, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Let's see what the Bible has to say about rape:

      If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel. -- Deuteronomy 22:22

      If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29

      Interesting stuff.

      SOURCE:

      http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=22&version=31
    • dicerandom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The problem with the "right to choose what happens to your body" argument is that it should apply to the child as well. The issue then becomes *when* it begins to apply. I don't think there are many people who would argue that the abortion of a 9 month old not-yet-born child is something that should be allowed in general. In fact it should probably be avoided in all but the most extreme cases where the life of the mother is in jeopardy. Similarly I doubt that many people would argue that a newly conceived zygote should have the same rights and protections as a newborn infant.

      Personally, I'd want to put the dividing line at "when the brain switches on" - although I doubt that it's quite that clear cut. I'm sure that someone with an MD could come up with something that would actually be reasonable.
      • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1But it's not a child yet, at that point, it's merely an underdeveloped batch of cells... or at most, a fetus.... It is not a baby... and it is not a person unless the parent chooses to allow it to become one.
        A lot of people argue, potential for life... but that really holds no ground... Everything can have potential for life... even the few chemicals that started mankind...

        While it is in early enough stages... it is still the woman's body... and thus it is her right to choose... (Especially if she was raped.)
        • dicerandom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Which is why I said "The issue then becomes *when* it begins to apply."

          Next time try reading past the first sentence.
  • GottIstTot, on 10/10/2007, -10/+45That ad may, in fact, be awesome.
  • hansjurgen, on 10/10/2007, -28/+5So, if these creative freaks were to be"witty" and say "but the homosexuals" back in the closet - Would that be OK since that will make attention? Wake up, it's suppose to be advertising that communicates a benefit to a potential customer who might then buy that product. This does neither and I say shut them down!
    • ScrewedThePooch, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8I would buy from them solely to piss off the neo-cons.
    • archimago42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4That would just be prejudiced against homosexuals. Other people's abortions don't affect you thus those are two entirely different things. You are blinded by your outrage.
  • krolm, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20i don't mind it at all. the manhattan mini storage ads often crack me up. that ad is actually right next to my building and across from the cbs broadcasting center.
    • Iatethecrayon, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0It's such a ridiculous ad that it can only be taken as a joke.
  • pandasonic, on 10/10/2007, -11/+97IT'S A ***** AD! IT'S THEIR ***** CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

    On the other hand, I do think the abortion of fetuses is wrong. Women should have their babies, then kill them.
    • Smuikas, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12And eat them?
    • LonesomeFighter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4or they could sell them to Russia, I hear they need more people.
    • kmpr326, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I use them to keep my skin's youthful glow.
    • GasPoweredGnome, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"IT'S A ***** AD! IT'S THEIR ***** CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT."

      Yeah but as we've all seen. Things aren't that simple... Sadly.
    • Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2In Soviet Russia, newborn babies eat YOU.
      • osbjmg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2We aren't doing the whole soviet russia thing anymore.
  • jd33, on 10/10/2007, -35/+7I don't care what your stance is on abortion ... that ad is just plain WRONG. It's not comical, it's sick.
    • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17no, it's funny, you just have no sense of humor
      • Iatethecrayon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2here, here!
      • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2It's not funny to think about killing babies with coathangers you *****.
        • EarlOfLade, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Alas, that is a reality in places were abortion is illegal and many women have died from coat hanger abortions, but I guess you and your "god" couldn't care less?
          • mattyG, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1And how many babies have died from legal ones? 40 million
    • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4jd33 ... what's wrong with the ad. When abortion was illegal, woman used coat hangers to abort themselves and many of them died. The pro-life community (I call them anti-choice) wants woman to be forced back into this situation. Making it illegal just will make it less safe for woman because many will make the decision to use a coat hanger. The anti-choice community is the same community that is abstinence only ... every study shows this leads to less safe sex. So rather than trying to force people to live how you want to live, why don't these people wake up and see that forcing their belief on other people has negative consequences, like the hanger.
  • hansjurgen, on 10/10/2007, -27/+2Not that I agree with Muslim extremists, but now you can see why they want to destroy us. If I were a Muslim child and I saw these type of "values", then I can agree that America is the "devil". If this lack of morals keeps up, then Muslims can just sit back and watch us destroy ourselves. Freedom of speech has a limit just as anything else and that's what defines a culture's moral values and what they will defend. If you read the news you would have read an interesting unbiased article that see America on the same path as the decline of the Roman Empire.
    • thegreeneyedkri, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13See, and I think its wrong to not allow women to speak unless spoken to and to have them walk behind the man at all times. Or that its okay to burn or stone a girl in your family who was raped because she is no longer pure and has shamed her family by being raped.

      You do know that the US is not the only county to have legalized abortion right?
    • luther70, on 10/10/2007, -4/+20The religious right and Muslim extremists share a lot of common ground.
      • thegreeneyedkri, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Exactly.

        and they both hate anything that isn't them or what they teach.

        Talk to some Northern Baptist and they will tell you that music and dancing are the devil's tools...
    • randallm, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3In Norway, the Muslims like to rape the women who are so devoid of morals and values that they dare walk outside wearing clothing that shows their hair or cleavage.
    • sbader, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1That article was on digg's frontpage twice yesterday.
  • ladybug12, on 10/10/2007, -9/+26I love it!!! It's about time pro-choice activists started showing some balls!! It's not graphic, it does not show an unborn or an aborted fetus. It simply spells out the truth, although I don't think women use coat hangers anymore. Hell they can run across the border to Mexico since that country made abortion legal. I am pro-choice and women need to start realizing that without speaking up and fighting for our rights, they will be diminished I promise you that. Either with this administration or the next one.
    • commernie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Actually, abortion was made legal only in Mexico City. Nice post, though. Dugg =).
    • Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+685% the way down the comments page and someone finally gets it.

      When the right to choose is removed, women will return to having unsafe backalley abortions.
      • GasPoweredGnome, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Your crystal ball tell you that? Its easy to present your assumptions as facts...
        • jitterbits, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
          No crystal ball necessary.
    • toxicshok, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Its for storage, its a storage ad. They aren't activists they are merely trying to get some free hype.
  • masterkenobi, on 10/10/2007, -17/+95It's not "Pro-Abortion". It's "Pro-Choice".
    • DreKor, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13I'm glad someone finally made that distinction. Thank you.
      • Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Yeah...the real Pro-abortion movement can't take the parallels..I'm pro-abortion; that is to say, I think abortion should be mandatory.

        In 100 years, all war will be over
    • redstormpopcorn, on 10/10/2007, -8/+13And by the same token, "anti-choice" is a much more accurate term than "anti-abortion."
      • DreKor, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10No, I'm pretty sure they don't want people to have abortions. Thus, the term is anti-abortion. Anti-choice would imply that they didn't want people making choices at all.
        • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4First, they are anti-choice. The only choice they allow is if it is in line with their morals. either one (anti-choice or abortion) is more accurate then pro-life, especially considering most of them are for the death penalty
        • darkism, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I would say anti-women is the best choice. Crazy fundies love to hate, whether it's women, gay people, blacks, immigrants...you name it and the religious whackos hate it.
      • skankyBacon, on 10/10/2007, -8/+7That's ridiculous. Some of us who are "anti-abortion" are perfectly fine with people making choices. In fact, the choices to use contraceptions and/or not have sex if you're not prepared for a baby are two of my favorites. "Anti-choice" is about as logical as calling you "anti-life."
        • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2from my post above you know I disagree with you. But anti-choice comes out of trying to fight the propaganda's and disingenuous term of pro-life
      • mattyG, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Actually the term is pro-life.
        • DreKor, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5That only applies if you support life in all it's forms (see: Catholicism). Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.
          • mattyG, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ummm no. Pro-life only applies to abortion. You don't go around saying your pro-choice for the death penalty do you?
      • lordtara, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1so when did Bill Hicks come back to life?
      • lordtara, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0so when did Bill Hicks come back to life?
    • gnixon70, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2is there a difference?
      • hassanchop13, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9yea, pro abortion implies that they want people to get abortions. pro choice implies that its not their business, its the chioce of the parent
    • catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3It is pro-abortion. I'm pro-abortion and proud of it. Pro-choice is what you say when you are pro-abortion but ashamed of it.
      • millyuns, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3No, it's pro-choice. I, personally would never choose to have a child of mine aborted (pro-life,personally), yet I would not tell you whether or not you should or should not.
    • Perrin0Killer, on 10/10/2007, -10/+0Come on, 'pro-choice'? What are you choosing? To have an abortion? Then wouldn't that make it 'pro-abortion'. That's not a question, it's a statement
      • jonfelder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6No it wouldn't. I'd rather people used contraceptives or didn't rape and therefore didn't have a need for an abortion. However, I respect a person's right to have one, because an abortion is better than an unwanted kid. In short, I'm pro-choice not pro-abortion.
    • 42h6Fh62h, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1No it is not pro-abortion OR pro-choice. You don't HAVE any choice you "want". It's pro-"I want to; that's mine; gimme; you never let me do ANYTHING I want". Just 'cause YOU say it's a "right" doesn't make it so. There IS NO "right" to choose. And "having a baby" DOES involve A BABY TOO; so the "only my body" arguments are *****.
      And this will not be settled until BOTH selfish, inconsiderate, spoiled, tantrum throwing, corrupt, dishonest EXTREMES either grow up or SHUT UP.
  • AriaStar, on 10/10/2007, -6/+56What about a man's right to not be a parent?

    I'm a pro-life women. It's not right nor equal that a woman can choose not to be a parent, but a man has no choice, and must support the woman and the baby. A man should be allowed to abort his parental responsibility if a woman has the right.
    • dallascorbin504, on 10/10/2007, -1/+31Amen! what are you doing later on? u want to grab a couple of drinks?
    • thenativeraver, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3Abortions should only be legal if they have the consent of both parties.
      But I don't know how I feel about a man deciding to abort a kid though.
      • AriaStar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11In about 2000, there was a case in the news where a man took his ex to court to keep her from aborting. He was thought to be infertile, and after several years of unprotected sex, she became pregnant. His miracle baby, but the court decided he had no right to his child. Yet if she gave birth to a child he didn't want, he'd be forced into paying. On the one hand, he had no right to be a parent if she didn't want to be, on the other, if he didn't want to be, he'd be forced into being one anyway.
        • luther70, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Maybe he should have sued the doctor that told him he was infertile.
          • AriaStar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2After several years, it's usually pretty same to presume infertility. I'm an infertile woman with medical validation, but that doesn't mean that the chance is absolutely 0, nor would it give me right to sue a doctor.

            BTW, the man, the one believed to be infertile, wanted the baby.
      • Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3On the one hand, I agree. If either party says no, then no abortion. On the other hand, why do women choose to have abortions? Many reasons, which I think can be summed up with "Because I don't want to be a parent right now."

        By having the right to choose, women are granted a choice about parenthood that men are no granted. Men should be able to make that choice in some fashion as well.
        • sbader, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm all for the opt out clause being added somewhere, but all of this gets really sticky when he wants to be a parent and she doesn't. But whenever anyone comes up with a law for this it's always worded in a way that seems designed to be anti-abortion rather than adding a choice for men.
    • Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11I agree. It is not fair that men have no choice in the matter.
    • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -15/+6He does have a choice. He can keep his dick in his pants.
      • AriaStar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3She has a choice - to pay for the baby if he doesn't want it.
      • breadfred, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3yes - and she keep her legs closed.. pfffft things happen in the spur of the moment, for the enjoyment of the act. A lot of time it is just that - enjoying the sex. Having a baby as a result can be a joy, but in some situations it is a burden. How do you support the baby through it's life? Can you afford a pram, let alone the latest trainers, let alone the university fees? I bet a lot of people have sex without wanting to have a baby - If this DOES happen, think about the opportunities you can give the said newborn. Can you give it the love and support it needs to have in a stable relationship? What is worse - a 2 year old in rags, beaten and God knows what else because it is unwanted or stopping the kid from being born?

        It is a difficult choice and always will be, but always thin about the consequences of your choice.
      • skankyBacon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Both "participants" have a choice. If they choose to have sex, especially without contraception, they should be prepared to deal with the potential results. But no, not here in America. We don't want any of that responsibility stuff.
        • millyuns, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Are you one of the people who vote to curb funding for welfare, children's public health insurance because when poor folk end up having children, you and I are stuck with the responsibility. Agreed?
          • skankyBacon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Indeed. No, I have not voted to do any of those things. Simply condemning people for doing something is stupid if you don't work on ways to make it easier to do something different. I think we need a lot of education about contraception, in addition to government-funded things like welfare, adoption services, etc. Let's make it as easy as we can for them to choose life.
        • Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Sitting back and condemning people for having abortions when they can't support a child and you are unwilling yourself to adopt is not responsible either, its called being a prick. If you really care so deeply about these unborn fetuses, you damn well better be willing to adopt them. Because you damn well have a responsibility to your fellow citizens to care about them. But most Christians would rather worry about the fetus, and not about the woman who probably is at her wits end and can't take care of the child.

          AND NOBODY gives a damn about the father, EVER.
          • skankyBacon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1When did I ever say I was unwilling to adopt? I think adoption should be encouraged, perhaps by the government via tax breaks or something, with a simultaneous push to educate people about contraception.
          • Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, you're a preachy bastard who doesn't think Americans take any responsibility for their actions.

            So, assuming you're one of them that does, and who goes online to talk about the evils of abortion -- and that people should carry their unwanted children to term, how many children HAVE you adopted?

            Or are you just like the yellow elephants that promote the war in Iraq but find an excuse not to enlist when push comes to shove?

            Oh yeah, I'd totally fight in Iraq if there's a war.... oh but wait, I have this old knee injury, I'm not fit to fight ... they need me fighting the war of ideas back home.
          • skankyBacon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Are you capable of carrying on a conversation without insulting your fellow conversant? It sure doesn't seem like it. So far, you've called me "arrogant," a "*****," a "prick," and a "preachy bastard," and all just for stating my opinion.

            No, I haven't adopted any children yet, but I'm still in college. It wouldn't be responsible right now, as I'd probably even have trouble taking care of a pet at this point. In the future, however, adoption would be my method of choice.

            I find this whole argument ridiculous. If you are pro-life, you must have adopted at least one child? How is that logical?
      • Perrin0Killer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1/agree
    • sbader, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3That's a whole different can of worms.
    • Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15How come it is always like the man is the only one who wants to have sex. Seriously if a man should keep his dick in his pants. Then I suggest you keep your pussy on lock down.
      • Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1How come we expect anyone to deny their natural drives? If nature cared about babies being born to competent parents, it wouldn't let you produce sperm and egg until it knew conditions were ideal. Hell, mother nature aborts more fetuses than mankind ever could. But then, I suppose I should have been a virgin my whole life because I might have had a contraceptive failure.

        Meanwhile the pro-life crowd will just get stuck in loveless marriages and stay together for the sake of their 16 kids they can't afford to support, because they hate contraception and hate abortion.

        I won't tell them they can't.
    • 2keysmatt, on 10/10/2007, -9/+8The man doesnt have to carry the baby around for 9 months. Like thcobbs said above, the man's choice stops as soon as he's "finished".
      • catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Then that should be the end of his legal responsibility as well.
    • pathy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Here's my take on it.

      Both the father and the mother can agree that they do not want to look at the child during the EARLY STAGES of the pregnancy. If they both agree they do not want the child, then the mother can make the choice to abort, or to go through with the birth and place the child up for adoption.

      If the father wishes to have the child, but the mother does not, then she has to go through with the entire ordeal anyway - unless there is a risk to her health from giving birth, in which case she may abort.
      • sbader, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Which kind of gives him control over her body which isn't something anyone should really have. I'm all for giving guys a way to opt out but giving them the ability to make the woman opt in just opens a bad can of worms especially in the cases of domestic abuse.
        • pathy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Uhm, pardon? How does this relate to domestic abuse?

          Maybe I'm seeing it a bit too black and white, but if the father wishes to keep the child and have 100% custody of it, the mother should not be allowed to terminate the child, unless there is a health risk to her from not aborting. Child conception is a two person tango. Maybe you could make it so the father is required to give reasonable help to the mother during the pregnancy, even if they're deciding to go entirely seperate ways after.
          • sbader, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Cause making someone have a baby is a good way to keep them trapped in a relationship. Or make them seem less attractive to any potential rivals.
    • Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4So your telling me there is not such thing as child support. Carrying a baby around for 9 months is a privelige. You get to bring life into this world it is a miracle.
      • sbader, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Why is it iwhen it comes to paying for the child no one ever realizes that the mom is paying too. It's not like every single bill a child has is covered by child support.
    • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Uh yeah. The man DOES have that choice. It's called don't ***** some skank without a rubber.
      • mrkmrk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1And the woman obviously has no choice but to keep her legs open the entire time, eh? Moron.
    • luther70, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1If a man has unprotected sex with a women he should be aware of the inherent risk that he could father.
      • oirvine, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2And what if he has protected sex but still becomes the father?
        • ducs, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Better yet, don't even try it.

          Airgaps tend to be 100% effective.
        • luther70, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He sues the condom manufacture for making a faulty product. In the end there is always that chance that the women might get pregnant. The only case really where the man shouldn't be held responsible is if he is lied to by the women. "Sure I'm on the Pill" Then its fraud and he is free and clear.
    • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i think it should be the other way around. both parents should have to agree to keep it. if even one doesn't want it, she should have an abortion. this way, the woman isn't carrying around a child for 9 months that she doesn't want, and a man isn't stuck paying child support for a child he didn't want. problem solved.
    • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah you know what else isn't fair? That women have to actually have the children. I think we should legislate that men have the right to give birth as well. Because that's what we're going for right, everything being equal for everyone?
      • osbjmg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I hear some women actually enjoy it. It cannot be broken down that simply though. I don't think it's an issue of fairness or equality, it's just how it is.
    • 42h6Fh62h, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wow. Do I detect an attempt at productive conversation, with integrity and "consideration" for BOTH sides?
      THANK YOU!!!!!
      Really, thank you. I am tired of pointless screaming matches between spoiled brats.
    • osbjmg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Voted most thought provoking comment I have seen in months.
  • kinerry, on 10/10/2007, -12/+57Pro-choice is not the same as Pro-abortion you ***** TWIT!
    • adam84a, on 10/10/2007, -17/+6keep telling yourself that
      • Godlike, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Yes, most of us will continue to respect our fellow beings and the right of the already living to determine the destiny of their own corporeal bodies. Yep. Thanks for the green light on that one, glad you approve.
      • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Using your logic I could tell you that you are pro-killing because you're not advocating making shooting muggers illegal. Sometimes people are put into tough situations and have to make difficult decisions. The ideal of "we should never ever have to abort a fetus" is unrealistic considering how the process works.
    • 42h6Fh62h, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1And "pro-choice" is an incomplete distortion of the truth.
      "Pro-choice of the female, but ONLY the female" would be correct.
    • proliance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Maybe you could explain the difference.
    • tapeworm77, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Kronos:
      Abortions for everyone! (boo!)
      No abortions for anyone! (boo!)
      Abortions for some, little American flags for others! (yay!)
  • eean, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8I'm 100% positive that a coat hanger has never been used to promote abortion.
    • AriaStar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It is in this case, by saying that the illegalization of abortion would force women to back-alley coat-hanger abortions.
      • DreKor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I think it's actually promoting the legality abortions. Promoting abortion by itself doesn't make a lot of sense, unless you