[Bestest Youtubes] Getting Anti-Social on Abortion | "Wonderful World of Stu"

I recommend this Korean SInger's Fancam On youtube

You Can Laugh With The Bestest Youtubes

==============================

Super Zombies Infection Scare Prank! [Click!]

Ass Prank [Click!]

Crazy Plastic Ball PRANK!! [Click!]

TINA MOVES IN - THE PRANK! [Click!]

HILARIOUS WATER ON DOOR PRANK! [Click!]

Killer Clown 4 - Massacre! Scare Prank! [Click!]

Coke Prank on Cops [Click!]

Minecraft Cube SMP - SUPER BOWL SPAWN PRANK - Ep. 20 ( Minecraft SMP Season 2 ) [Click!]

Water Cooler Prank - YouTube Halftime Show [Click!]

Killing My Own Kid PRANK!! [Click!]

Minecraft: Cube SMP S2 - Episode 26 - Super Bowl Prank [Click!]

Minecraft: The Cube SMP! Episode 20 - SUNDAY PRANK DAY! [Click!]

HOW TO GET OUT OF A COP CAR! [PRANK!] [Click!]

Killer Clown 3 - The Uncle! Scare Prank! [Click!]

Zombie Apocalypse Halloween Prank (SA Wardega) [Click!]

MORTAL KOMBAT ELEVATOR PRANK! [Click!]

Spank Prank [Click!]

Extreme Sleeping On People PRANK!! (GIRLS EDITION) [Click!]

Blowing Girls Clothes Off Prank!! [Click!]

Funniest Prank Public [Click!]

==============================

[Bestest Youtubes] Getting Anti-Social on Abortion | "Wonderful World of Stu"



=========================



The problem with this argument is that it is framed incorrectly. The difference between a fetus one minute prior to birth and a baby one minute after birth is not the rights of the born/unborn, but rather in the relevance of the rights of the mother.The pro-choice argument rests on a belief that a woman has a right to decide what to do with her own body. THAT is the way pro-choice people frame the argument, so the response to your "what is the difference between one minute before birth and one minute after birth" question is very obvious, unambiguous, and effective. The difference is that the well being of the baby is no longer contingent upon the choices that the mother makes regarding her own body one minute after birth. This difference is very significant.Do a lot of pro-choice people argue that it is wrong to abort during the third trimester? Yes. Does this make them inconsistent? Somewhat. But it is relatively inconsequential because in practice a woman is going to decide if she wants an abortion well before that point anyways, and so there is no pressing reason for these people to argue in favor of third trimester abortions, even if not doing so makes them inconsistent.

+Ruzhyo2000Normally I appreciate the use of analogies, because they help me in understanding a situation. In this case, though, you're comparing something that COULD happen (your choice in not donating money COULD have the result of a child's death), with the choice of an abortion that has only one result: abortion = death. I do get what you're saying...the government would be absolutely ridiculous to guilt us or force us into sending money to the less needy. But the "perhaps" is what limits your argument. There is no "perhaps" in abortion. When there is only one result in a choice being made, then that choice is what has brought it about. There's no need to dance around the truth.But since you're saying that the death of the fetus is a "consequence" of the mother's choice, then every action should be made to prevent such a consequence. I'm not going to be like one of those crazy, shouting activists that forces you to look at images of aborted babies...but you have to understand that abortion completely disregards the rights of the child. There is no attempt to find another solution, there is no government policy saying, "Yeah, let's fund the research for technology that allows the fetus to live on its own!" There is only the law that says abortion, through all 9 months of pregnancy, is absolutely legal.What I'm trying to get at here is that if we're going to recognize that the fetus is a person and that person has rights, then more should be done for him/her than what is being done now (nothing). Our nation's stance on abortion, therefore, should be attempting every way possible to appease both the rights of the woman and the child...not completely disregarding one for the other.

I don't see it framed incorrectly, but there is a difference in perspective.That difference would be considering the unborn child to be her mother's "own body." The child is it's own life, and therefore has its own body.The takes part of itself (and half its genetic identity) from the father, but there is no question of it being the father's body. The baby stays inside the body for a while...but it is it's own organism just as much as, say, a parasite...which means the argument is about whether the child should be treated as human or as an inferior organism to exterminate as we please (exactly what Stu addresses). The baby can still be connected by an umbilical cord for a short while after birth. Is it still the mother's body, and free to be murdered until after the cord is cut? To me, that sounds psychotic.As Derek Fisher framed the pro-choice side, there is a "balancing of the rights of the woman against rights of the unborn child." Unless the mother is in danger of death, there is no "balance" here. It's just the desires of the mother against SOMEONE'S LIFE. In sane places, they call that MURDER.We don't let siamese twins kill each other for freedom of what to do with "their bodies." The other person is just as alive as they are...therefore, WE DON'T ALLOW MURDER.

Thank you Stu. God bless this world that one day abortion is no longer being preformed.

According to CBS News,55 to 42, the American people want abortion to be MORE RESTRICTED than it is today.They want the laws to move in the pro-life direction, they want it to be limited to EARLY ABORTIONS, restricted circumstances like consenting adults. But while that's good news.. IT MAKES NO FREAKING SENSE. Let me explain:is it okay to abort a baby AFTER birth? hell no rightis it okay to abort a baby ONE MINUTE BEFORE birth? hell no right-- anyone can agree that it is completely psychotic to say one minute it's a fetus with no rights that you can kill legally and the next minute its a living person that killing will win you a murder charge.---What about in the LAST 3 MONTHS of pregnancy when it looks obviously like a child?What about in the MIDDLE of pregnancy when it is still fairly distinguishable as a child?Or the FIRST 3 MONTHS of pregnancy when it is developing the form of a child?-- At some point some of you will say, "yes it's okay to abort that kid, that one, it's okay" ..most likely around 3 months.-- So at 4 MONTHS it is NOT okay. So is it okay at 3 MONTHS? 30 DAYS? 23 HOURS? 59 MINUTES? So you are saying one minute of these it is a fetus with no rights that you can kill legally and the next minute it is a living person that killing will in you a murder charge? In other words, you are calling yourself psychotic by a definition you already agreed too.-- So a baby conceived in January becomes a baby after 89 days but a baby conceived in March becomes a baby in 92 days? Why? Because we decided to make February a shorter month? What if you're unlucky enough to be conceived in a leap year? Then you're not a baby until 90 days. Does any of this make freaking sense? Kermit Gosnell faced the death penalty for killing babies at just over 24 weeks. If he was ONE DAY EARLIER and cleaned up a bit around the office, he would have been a respected doctor. ONE MINUTE at 24 weeks was the difference between a mansion and a prison, an Armani suit or an orange jumpsuit. That America is freaking psychotic.

Is this from a previous episode or the one that comes out this Saturday?

Cant argue that! the other thing ive been pointing out to people is, what about those criminals you often hear of who've shot pregnant women in the stomach on purpose to kill both her, and the child she's carrying? You always hear people making it sound so much worse than if she werent pregnant. You wont hear "oh well it's fine that the baby also got shot since it wasnt a real human yet" c,mon now..

The word "rights" is thrown around for almost anything today, such as the "right" to free healthcare. Healthcare is not a right. To force others to pay for your healthcare and other choices is wrong. I submit that abortion of a child at ANY stage is not a right either. It is a wrong... and every woman who has one, knows in her soul it is wrong. Black women, more black babies are being aborted than born. For every 3 pregnancies at least one will be aborted. This shameful and just plain WRONG.

As far as the arguments themselves, I always thought that the semantics were idiotic. The goal of any Libtard in this debate is to make this into a war of semantics "NOT a baby, but a fetus!" "Not alive!" "It's not its own person, but part of the mother!" When you get into a battle of semantics, they'e already won the debate whether you are able to prove your semantics right or not, because they've taken your eyes off of the real issue.I think that Conservatives argue these points poorly because they get so caught up in the war of semantics sometimes. What needs done is to come up with a clear definition of life, murder, and unjustifiable death in general that is impossible to rationally deny without sounding like a killer. The way I explain this to them is this: Look at all of the abortion survivors and their stories. Now, is the failure of an abortion something to be cleaned up? Perhaps we should increase our abortion attempt success rate? Was the attempted killing of those survivors justified? What is important is that, when you kill someone, you aren't just killing someone right then and there. You don't come and say "oops, I killed this person, but I can fix it for you." No, once you've done the deed, you have performed an irreversible act, removing ALL of the years of one's life, not just denied them the immediate moment. You have denied the family all of the years they could have with that person had you not have consciously ended their life.This is a clear reason why life should begin at the initiation of a pregnancy, whenever we can define that as a case.

His lazy eye makes him creepy as shit.

I draw the line at a certain point because, if you stay pregnant long enough for the fetus to look like a person and you still end up getting an abortion, you were probably pressured into it somehow. As for late term abortions, that shit is barbaric. Why the fuck would you have an abortion so late? Just give birth and put it up for adoption at that point, dumbass.

I also like the Ray Comfort argument.

This is a new argument?? I've been saying this for years!

Sad though true.

Umm, hang on for one moreminute please...

Interesting argument

There are plenty of good pro-life arguments to be made, but Stu's is not one of them. Repeatedly saying that it is "completely psychotic" to be against abortion at later stages of pregnancy but tolerant of it at an earlier stage does not make it true. There are plenty of laws that are framed this way. Take driving your car for example. At 65 mph you are driving the speed limit, but at 66 you are speeding and must pay a $400 ticket. With Stu's logic, you either support driving at all speeds (whether it be 1 mph or 200), or you are against driving altogether. Certainly, determining a safe speed limit can be objectively calculated much easier than determining what stage of pregnancy (if any) should abortion be legal. But the logic is the same. Saying that if you are against late term abortions you must also be against every abortion, even abortions only weeks into pregnancy, is not a valid argument.

Oh and God isn't real.

Abortions tickle!

I like how they call it "abortion care," because that's the complete opposite of what is really being done.

How about this: Safe sex with your WIFE ONLY? You know, the way it's been socially accepted for tens of thousands of years? Come on America, let's be logical here! Sex isn't like shaking someone's hand, lets keep it special. You don't want to be cheating on your wife (or future wife) do you? That much is up to you. Just have the brains to make a good decision.

Stu, you are amazing. Keep up the wonderful work!

Favorited. Excellent video and very well done/well put.

Most abortion supporters aren't logical, as you point out in this video, why shouldn't it be okay to kill a one year old? or a two year old? Where do you draw the line, and when it is drawn, why? Murder should totally be legal by "pro-choice" logic.

This vid is spot on, very well done. This is what happens when people think they can give and take away other human beings intrinsic worth, absolutely full retard.

I dislike because he's making a complex issue black and white when it's not. I think thr biggest issue with this issue is the lack of understanding of biology. Im not saying either side is right. Im not going to put in my own opinions but abortion isn't a black and white issue like he tried to portray.

+Matt DarlingJust to show an example of why that is not valid, by the same argument if there was a person who's pain receptors were cut off to their body, killing them would be okay because they couldn't feel it.

oh yes it is

She's Fluke-n' crazy!!!!

Just wanna go ahead and say, A-FRICKEN-MEN!!!!!! Absolutly love you Stu-keep up the good work!

Obviously Galton Darwin (Eugenecist) thumbed this video down.

+BeranMAgreed on your first paragraph.(Both in that they are rare, and rarely do women who want an abortion, need an abortion. See: Devout Atheist Eugenics/Galton Darwin, as you know already)((Note- Meaning, actual religious folk don't do it, but this seems to be maintained as yet another "city folk" problem, focusing on the unbelievably eugenecist-ridden states such as the northern yankee, east and west coasts, being non-existent here where I am.Therefore it points directly to Hitler, Eugenics Congress, Evolution, all the Darwin in-breeders, obviously Karl Marx...and College Academia ((so-called "expert opinions"))Indeed, I stand corrected on "abstinence", I forgot that one.

Oops...let me also throw in that abortions are a statistical minority deviancy, but at the same time (with a long-enough run), it enhances and promotes the Eugenics Death Kult of Evolution (as you know)...all the while OVER-promoting a statistical minority deviancy as if it is "normal" and right next door (when it is not), in order to normalize it...just like the Gay Agenda (those are very real groups, with very real Eugenics-based agendas, I think Henry Fairfield Osborn covered that one), Feminazi's (obvious), Transexuals (duh), Aryan Nation, etc...you get the point.You can throw in Jews too if you like (Zionists, and the ZOA, SPLC, ACLU, ADL), just for completeness.In each case it is a group that is almost non-existent (even in importance), but promoted heavily as "special" (while being said almost non-existent statistical minority) to push an in-general Eugenics-based social engineering agenda.Ye Olde "More Equal than Equal" agenda, because each "lead group" convinces the others that they are "victims" of something.And oddly, the only groups that never raise hell, or whine all the time are-Buddhists, Zen-peeps...and Muslims.And at least one of those three get hammered all the time, conspicuously, while the others don't...amirite?

This macabre obsession with controlling womens' bodies is really getting old republicans. And its electoral cryptonite so good luck with it.

As the child of a single parent, I can't help but be Pro-Life. It was my body too. Thanks for saying it was okay for my mom to decide she made a mistake and kill me.

I draw the line at the end of the first trimester. If it can be done in the embryonic stage that's fine by me. If people want to avoid abortions, contraception needs to be pushed more. If the pregnancy doesn't happen in the first place there's no need for this discussion.

+phiten40Since you are working on a year late, and as an empty sock-puppet, I already know for certain which ones you are...profile completed.

Thank you Stu for saying the truth about how "out of touch with reality" the "pro-choice" movement really is... If we keep this up, maybe these percentages will move closer to what we know is right in our hearts and that is: It is wrong to kill babies - lets call it for what it is!!! We have a lot of work to do... and sadly the number of babies killed I think was quoted at 55 Million since Roe vs. Wade... I'm praying for the day that Americans see abortion for what it is - its inhumane and its Murder!!!

Well, he made the shot (baby-crib-toss-over-shoulder) , so there is that:)

=========================



Come to my Sites :) koreannetizen, netizenopinion.