This was posted 2 years 5 months 18 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

[PC] Indie Bundle for Abortion Funds - 792 DRM-Free Games/Projects - US$10.00 Minimum @ Itch.io

17827
[PC] Indie Bundle for Abortion Funds - 792 DRM-Free Games/Projects - US$10.00 Minimum @ Itch.io
Go to Deal
Bonding0909 on 04/07/2022 - 16:23 itch.io (2952 clicks)
Last edited 04/07/2022 - 16:42 by 1 other user

itch.io is running a jumbo bundle inspired by recent US events. $10 minimum purchase price for 790+ items, with more to be added until the 7th of July.

100% of the proceeds from this bundle will go to the National Network for Abortion Fund's Collective Power Fund, which moves money directly to abortion funds across 20+ U.S. states, with a particular focus on the South and Midwest (where it is often most difficult to get access to abortions). NNAF’s partnerships with these abortion funds provide direct resources and funds to many of the people most impacted by Roe v. Wade, towards immediate action.

All games are DRM-free, and can be downloaded and installed from the itch.io website. No Steam keys or similar are provided.

I haven't yet perused the list for good items (or sought out posts from people that have done so), but feel free to share in the comments.

Gaming PC Game Video Game

Related Stores

itch.io
itch.io
Marketplace

closed Comments

        • Kmartsecurityguard on 04/07/2022 - 18:02
          -4

          Not as desperate as you cringe virtual signalling leftists.

        • m0usju1c3 on 04/07/2022 - 19:45
          +8

          Your response is desperately void of anything worth reading, why don't you have a crack at his reasoning, instead of just belittling?

          • the cringe on 04/07/2022 - 20:16
            +3

            @m0usju1c3: M0us that's what they always do, and then when they can't win you're a n-n-n-nazi! And that helps them sleep at night in their fairy clownworld.

          • GrueHunter on 05/07/2022 - 16:46

            @m0usju1c3: But you read it, didn’t you?

            • m0usju1c3 on 05/07/2022 - 16:53

              @GrueHunter: I did mate, but you know what, it would really advance the cultural issues of our day, that has caused such a divide, if we debated more often on a deep and meaningful level.

              • GrueHunter on 05/07/2022 - 18:52
                +1

                @m0usju1c3: You're not interested in advancing anything.

                I'm not your mate.

                • m0usju1c3 on 05/07/2022 - 21:42

                  @GrueHunter:

                  You're not interested in advancing anything.

                  Well this is true of yourself at least. Enjoy the rest of your life in your safe space where you are protected from critical thought, can't say I didn't try.

                  • ihfree on 05/07/2022 - 23:16
                    +1

                    @m0usju1c3: That's not very Christian of you. Besides, religion is the ultimate safe space which takes away the need for critical thought.

                    • m0usju1c3 on 06/07/2022 - 15:34

                      @ihfree: What's not Christian of me? I tried several times to engage in discord but he clearly showed no regard, in the end all I did was highlight the truth, which is he was willing to chastise and criticise yet backed up none of it. You can find more direct and unequivocal descriptions of such people within the book of Proverbs.

                      Interesting point you make about religion, so what is it about your beliefs that allows you to draw any conclusion utilising logic or reason absolute or universal? What standard of reasoning are you harnessing or what is the source of your ultimate truth to make such a claim?

      • 2ndeffort on 04/07/2022 - 19:08
        +7

        Nods slowly whilst backing away

      • Miss B on 04/07/2022 - 19:11
        +2

        We're not in the US, most right wing in Australia are supportive of things like women's rights, vaccines, marriage equality, combating climate change, and licencing and assessment for gun ownership.

        • Grandslam on 04/07/2022 - 22:56
          +4

          I'm supportive of human rights - including defenceless babies. This "deal" is pretty offensive.

          • Miss B on 04/07/2022 - 23:48
            +1

            @Grandslam: If it can't survive outside someone else's body it's not a baby. Do you think we should figure out how to turn people into life support systems and we can keep people alive who couldn't survive on their own, instead of just fetuses? Seems like there are many on here who will be lining up to volunteer.

            • Almost Banned on 04/07/2022 - 23:56
              +3

              @Miss B: Ummm, by your definition no child would be called a baby until it was independent.
              Every mammalian species - and particularly humans - require the care of a parent (or parental figure) to survive for at least the first few years after birth.

              • Miss B on 05/07/2022 - 00:03
                +1

                @Almost Banned: Yep, ninja edited to make it clearer, essentially if it can't survive without being hooked up to another person, it's not a baby.

                • Almost Banned on 05/07/2022 - 00:06

                  @Miss B: Right - so you think that a 2 year old who is entirely dependant on its parents is not a baby?

                  • Miss B on 05/07/2022 - 00:11

                    @Almost Banned: I was agreeing the way I originally worded it was unclear. I reworded it after posting, presumably after you read it, but before you replied. But no, I would say a 2 year old is more a toddler.

                  • ihfree on 05/07/2022 - 00:12

                    @Almost Banned: That's already quite clear. A 2yo can live independently of it's parents quite easily.

      • Macka7 on 04/07/2022 - 19:38
        +26

        1. Climate Change doesn't mean we're going to be wiped off the face of the planet within 30 years. The more immediate concern is the widespread instability it will cause. You think there's a lot of migration from developing countries NOW? Wait until those people start facing temperatures that make their land unfit for life without the modern facilities they don't have. They will have no choice but to move.

        2. It's the guns that allow nutters to kill people at scale, and in a faster timeframe. They should be heavily restricted for that reason. Sure, you'll never be able to prevent knife sprees or whatever, but at least the damage inflicted will be much lower without guns.

        3. Women should be able to get abortions, and vaccines should be mandatory. These aren't comparable situations even with the co-opting of that tagline. The difference is that a woman getting an abortion does not affect Joe Schmoe down the street. It has literally nothing to do with him. On the other hand, someone not taking vaccines IS harmful to the majority.

        • scud70 on 04/07/2022 - 20:56
          +7

          Dude… That moron did not deserve the time n effort you put into a reply..lol have a +

      • the cringe on 04/07/2022 - 20:14
        -2

        Well said, A5tro.

        So many left wing sheep on here it's almost as bad as reddit.

        • GrueHunter on 05/07/2022 - 18:54
          +1

          What a unique comment. I've never read one quite like it. It's certainly not the sort of line that would be endlessly spouted by somebody who was mimicking the rest of the herd.

          Also, nice jumper.

          • the cringe on 06/07/2022 - 00:46

            @GrueHunter: Wolf among the sheep your opinion is irrelevant

            • gizmomelb on 06/07/2022 - 03:16

              @the cringe: funny.. I'd hazard the majority on here think the same of your bleating.. sorry, opinion.

              • the cringe on 06/07/2022 - 13:02

                @gizmomelb: That's because redditbargain is majority leftist so it's no skin of my nose.

                You think the unpopular opinion is the sheep bleating, yeah I'd be sorry too if I were you

                • gizmomelb on 06/07/2022 - 15:04

                  @the cringe: umm every democratic nation around the world is based on leftist socialism you idiot (but you choose to ignore that).

                  unpopular opinion is usually just the selfish bleating that they can't do what they want, when they want or tell others what to do any more and they're looking for other sad and lonely sheep who will agree with them.

                  • the cringe on 06/07/2022 - 18:11

                    @gizmomelb: You really think that leftists are the same they were even just 30 years ago, idiot?

                    Everything you just said can be applied to leftists, idiot. Nice self awareness, idiot 🤡

    • FabMan on 04/07/2022 - 22:58

      Same team that thought 5G was causing COVID-19.

    • m0usju1c3 on 04/07/2022 - 23:40

      So by your list, I take it you believe in climate change as a serious issue to be dealt with and that you are pro-abortion.

      Please enlighten me then, should we prioritise the lives that we can literally save right now, or should we prioritise lives in the future, non-existent yet, that would be subject to catastrophic effects of climate change?

      • FabMan on 05/07/2022 - 11:47
        +1

        What an odd question, it is like you think you are going to spring a gotcha on them.

        • m0usju1c3 on 05/07/2022 - 12:25

          Nope, I am genuinely asking mate. No bullcrap, no gotcha and let me say I genuinely care for you and your response.

          • FabMan on 05/07/2022 - 16:25
            +1

            @m0usju1c3: Plenty of politicians and law makers. Can have abortion laws in place while working towards reducing climate change, it isn't a binary situation or one that requires prioritising.

            • m0usju1c3 on 05/07/2022 - 16:57

              @FabMan: Nice wordplay there, now can you not dodge the question and answer it? Especially when it involves monumental shifts and changes to our culture, economy, energy dependence and national defence? Not to mention, you know, Climate Change often propagated as a moral issue.

              • FabMan on 05/07/2022 - 18:48
                +1

                @m0usju1c3: Why is that necessary to choose or prioritize on global level? My view is each issue should be looked at individually with considerations to the present, near future, and far future.

                Abortion laws help people over the short and long term. Pregnant woman doesn't need to bear an unwanted child, causing potential health issues, and long term prevents her having to raise an unwanted or unhealthy child.

                Environmental issues, regarding climate change, can look at helping those.in the long term without sacrificing too much off the people living now.

                Life isn't binary, there isn't a clear rule to be followed, and each issue shouldn't prioritise the far future or the present. We don't have to base our lives an a simple guidelines written up into one book, rather it should change and adapt as we progress and the situation requires it to.

                • GrueHunter on 05/07/2022 - 18:57
                  +2

                  @FabMan: You're trying to reason with a consequentialist - the special ed class of moral philosophy. They opened with a false dilemma. You're wasting your time.

                  • m0usju1c3 on 05/07/2022 - 22:03

                    @GrueHunter: Ah, hello Grue :)

                    If you must know, it isn't consequentialism, it is the pre-suppositional method or sometimes referred to as the transcendental argument. It simply gets way back to the foundation of beliefs.

                    I'd really like to know, you mentioned I opened with a false dilemma, could you please elaborate and then provide the correct answer?

                • m0usju1c3 on 05/07/2022 - 22:06

                  @FabMan:

                  Why is that necessary to choose or prioritize on global level? My view is each issue should be looked at individually with considerations to the present, near future, and far future.

                  What I'm getting at is, if you're going to argue for something fervently and tell me I'm wrong, then you ought to have a basis or foundation for your reasoning. By the sounds of it, the standard you keep going back to is pretty much yourself. I understand that's how you're reasoning, but if that's the extent of your epistemology, then you have the simple problem of another person coming along a disagreeing, what then? Is truth then established by majority vote? What is your worldview?

                  Environmental issues, regarding climate change, can look at helping those.in the long term without sacrificing too much off the people living now.

                  I admire your desire to help people especially in the future, but the end of your sentence really concerns me. Going by what you've said, we are already sacrificing more people then we ever have in history, every day, because of the murder of the unborn i.e. abortion.

                  Life isn't binary, there isn't a clear rule to be followed, and each issue shouldn't prioritise the far future or the present.

                  Ok then, first you say "Life isn't binary, there isn't a clear rule to be followed" then go on to "each issue shouldn't prioritise the far future or the present". You're not seeing the contradiction there? If there's no clear rule to follow, why are you creating a clear rule of "each issue shouldn't prioritise the far future or the present"??

                  Also you say "We don't have to base our lives an a simple guidelines written up into one book, rather it should change and adapt as we progress and the situation requires it to."

                  According to what or who? Is there some sort of ultimate, universal standard you're referring to? Is this just a collective opinion from a group of people? How in anyway is this absolutely correct, and other methods wrong?

                  • FabMan on 05/07/2022 - 22:32
                    +1

                    @m0usju1c3: "keep going back to is pretty much yourself"

                    Don't we all? I mean even if we rely on something or someone else to tell us what to do, it is a decision we've made, we decided to abandon personal responsibility and place it on something else.

                    As for a universal base on which I place each decision on, or my ideology on, I'm not sure. I look at information presented to me, I look at which option seems better for helping me, helping other people, or reducing suffering and I think 'That one'. I don't always act in the way I want too though; I know driving my car to the shop instead of taking longer to walk there adds pollution to the planet, but I have chosen a convenience at the expense of something else. I try to avoid products and services that cause unnecessary damage to people, animals, or the environment.

                    So, in the case of abortions, terminating an unwanted pregnancy early enough is the better option. The cells are not a person yet, there is no sentience, it is as much as killing unwanted cancer cells, which will allow the host to the cells to live a life better, with hopefully less suffering for them and a potentially unwanted child.

                    • m0usju1c3 on 06/07/2022 - 15:41

                      @FabMan:

                      As for a universal base on which I place each decision on, or my ideology on, I'm not sure. I look at information presented to me, I look at which option seems better for helping me, helping other people, or reducing suffering and I think 'That one'.

                      This is the contradiction I'm getting at though, by this reasoning, ultimately you can't know or be absolutely certain about anything. In your set of beliefs, the only pre-supposition is that there is no absolute truth, there is only arbitrary ideology which at the time, place and culture, "seems" right.

                  • FabMan on 05/07/2022 - 23:00
                    +1

                    @m0usju1c3:

                    You're not seeing the contradiction there?

                    Now you are being pedantic. I think it is clear to anyone who isn't try to do a gotcha or win a debate on a word technicality, a disingenuous approach. Considering you've moved the argument from Abortion rights to a philosophical debate, I shouldn't be surprised. You want a rule, there isn't a hard and fast rule, look at each political decision on its on merits, though of course save time by using previous decisions and similar rules to start from and also be prepared to change rules and laws based on new information as it is discovered and as society changes.

                    According to what or who?

                    I'd state intelligence and logic. The Bible itself states humans are fallible, with only God not being fallible. The bible is a compilation of many stories by many different fallible people, many of whom didn’t even follow Christ, all with their own unique fallible perspective on events or their thoughts. The compilation process of the bible was debated and argued over, which if the texts were infallible should not have been required. It has been translated into different languages by fallible people, where many words do not have a direct translation, and so interpretation of the meanings are required. The bible is so unclear that different Christian denominations have been created as Christians have disagreed on the meaning of the bibile, they have argued over it for centuries, killed each over it, set up different churches with very slight differences on text meanings or had their churches based on more significant differences. Some churches have adapted their views as time as progressed with society, meaning to them the texts are not literal, but are to be adapted to the society we live in.

                    As such, I put my faith into the scientific method as it seems like a logical and intelligent choice. An approach where we test a hypothesis, make observations, collect and publish the results, and willingly get others to scrutinize it to work towards a measurable fact, a potentially a truth of somekind.

                    • m0usju1c3 on 06/07/2022 - 15:56

                      @FabMan:

                      I think it is clear to anyone who isn't try to do a gotcha or win a debate on a word technicality, a disingenuous approach. Considering you've moved the argument from Abortion rights to a philosophical debate, I shouldn't be surprised. You want a rule, there isn't a hard and fast rule,

                      You're accusing me of attempting a gotcha but all I'm doing is pointing to a major flaw within the logic and reasoning within a naturalist/materialistic/atheistic worldview, or any set of beliefs that starts off with the pre-supposition/foundation that there is no absolute truth, just made up arbitrary set of rules, therefore, truth is in the eye of the beholder.

                      I'd state intelligence and logic.

                      Ok, now what or where is the ultimate standard for this? Where does wisdom ultimately reside if we can harness intelligent thought and logic? Is it simply relativism that truth is in the eye of the beholder?

                      As such, I put my faith into the scientific method as it seems like a logical and intelligent choice. An approach where we test a hypothesis, make observations, collect and publish the results, and willingly get others to scrutinize it to work towards a measurable fact, a potentially a truth of somekind.

                      How do we determine the scientific method? Again, you're using language like "it seems".

                      We have to be pedantic about this, because down the line of our conclusion of thoughts, stemming from our pre-suppositions, we frame our beliefs. If the roots of the tree have deteriorated, how can the tree survive? Or to use a better a better parable from a much wiser man than I, a house built on sand falls when the wind and storms come.

    • Abraxsas on 07/07/2022 - 13:50
      -1

      Informed Consent & Pro Choice does not = Anti Vax…You only have to listen to the Ambulances flying past 24/7 to know the Covid19 Vax is a complete disaster, but i'm sure that 4th dose of gene editing will do the job. It's no coincidence there are warnings all around asking people to get their AIDS test, you would have to be blind, deaf & stupid to not see the bigger picture here. Fauci had his hand in the cookie jar when AIDS shot to prominence in the 80's and you wonder why we don't trust the Science. The reasons are endless. Ebola or Marburg disease has become a hot topic for those people going in for more boosters…Yeah that's where you bleed out from every orifice good luck being woke against that.

      Pro Guns does not not = Serial Killer or Red Neck. It means if you need you have protection or the means to hunt or target shoot because no man has the right to deny a free man any of those things.

      Thinks climate change is a hoax = The Earths temperature has not moved in the last 15 years…The Sea level is exactly the same. The Climate has been weaponized against us as another means of greater control they are even claiming climate change is causing heart conditions and SADS (sudden adult death syndrome - hello Vaccine) and that climate change is the cause of sexual assault lmao. But hey "Trust the Science".

      Anti abortion = Pro life it does not mean we are against abortion when the mothers mental or physical health is in jeopardy it simply means you need to take responsibility for your actions by using a contraceptive or not getting around like the local bike. But perhaps Monkey pox will take care of that thanks to the Vaccine containing Monkey DNA which the CDC was warned about having a cross over effect. It's called Pathogenic Priming. Swine Flu Bird Flu Russia, Russia, Russia!!.

      Whilst you may believe you are outside looking in you are without doubt caged mentally and all your laughter will achieve is another bone from your handlers, who have trained you well. Without our FREEDOM we are all just slaves, but with freedom comes responsibility and that is where people like you have lost sight of the truth.

      • ihfree on 07/07/2022 - 14:00

        Here's a video on what the deaths would look like without the vaccine. There are more deaths but the percentage of people with covid dying is lower than prior to vaccination. TLDW: The vaccine is doing its job.

  • KRiSX on 04/07/2022 - 17:03
    +9

    the Ukraine one I saw the point, but we don't need one of these for everything that occurs in the world

    • maverickjohn on 04/07/2022 - 17:09
      +4

      Also agree with this.

      • GrueHunter on 04/07/2022 - 18:01
        +2

        If only there was a button you could click that let you show that

    • VBO on 04/07/2022 - 20:16
      +2

      The ukraine one wasn't needed either

    • FabMan on 04/07/2022 - 22:59
      +1

      You can also ignore any campaign you aren't interested in.

    • gizmomelb on 06/07/2022 - 15:06

      try telling that to the gofundme crowd… oh I don't have enough money this week for durrys after I spent it all on booze.. please someone help me!

  • Loki556 on 04/07/2022 - 17:03
    +5

    Crap games, no bargain

    • infinite on 04/07/2022 - 18:41
      +2

      Have to agree, these are terrible and not a deal at all.

  • Deepchild on 04/07/2022 - 17:09
    +1

    This or the covid bundle ?

  • Illyria on 04/07/2022 - 17:11
    -5

    smh

  • maverickjohn on 04/07/2022 - 17:13
    +19

    I'm annoyed at the roe and wade outcome.
    Also for the antis, supporting the decision to have an abortion does not mean you support abortion. There are several reasons outside of not wanting a child to have an abortion. Things such as rape being the cause of that. How do you think the child will grow up knowing they weren't born out of love or care. You are setting up that child for a horrible life.
    Things aren't just black or white (not sure if that's PC anymore) there are a lot of greys and for that, i believe the woman has a right to choose to go through with abortion.
    Would my wife and I ever do it. Not a chance. But it does not mean I should stop others.
    In saying that this deal is pretty crap

    • Loki556 on 04/07/2022 - 17:17
      -8

      Completely unlimited access to abortion is just wrong.

      We oppose killing of girls in India yet allow for termination in the ground of sex. It’s just nuts.

      However, there are quite a few scenarios where abortion may be the thing to do.

      The scary thing is neither side is prepared to work toward a middle ground anymore, on any issue.

      • [Deactivated] on 04/07/2022 - 17:20
        +17

        Muh "both sides"

      • railspider on 04/07/2022 - 20:06
        +13

        Who has completely unlimited access to abortion? You're just making shit up to get angry about now

        • Loki556 on 04/07/2022 - 20:13
          +3

          Dude, look at the abortion laws in most Australian states, most of them are pretty loose.

          • railspider on 04/07/2022 - 20:31
            +11

            @Loki556: Completely unlimited is now "pretty loose". If I bothered to show how you're wrong again, you'd continue to move the goal posts.

            I have a question for you - why such strong views on what a woman does with her body? Assuming pretty loose abortion laws don't impact you personally, why get so worked up over this issue?
            Why not let people live their life how they like when it doesn't affect you?

            • Loki556 on 04/07/2022 - 20:52
              +1

              @railspider: You are ok with pregnancies being terminated on the basis of sex?

              Pretty loose - too open, in ways that are hurting living human beings.

              Why not let people live their life how they like when it doesn't affect you?

              Because that’s a complete lie. This whole “live their life” has been shown to be completely false, reality being “now we will tell you how to live your life”.

              • FabMan on 04/07/2022 - 23:01
                +5

                @Loki556: How is having an option to have an aborition, telling you how to live your life? Taking that option away is telling you how to live your life.

                Do you even think about what you are going to write before you do?

    • Almost Banned on 04/07/2022 - 17:34

      I am curious to know exactly which part of Justice Alito's decision in the Dobbs decision concerned you.
      Perhaps you could let us know.
      As for your other point, do you think the child of rape or having parents who didn't want it would rather have been ripped apart in utero and sucked up a tube?

      • Rorschach on 05/07/2022 - 12:28

        and what of the woman forced to have the baby because she was raped?
        "..tough luck, suck it up?"

    • Goldsac on 04/07/2022 - 17:36
      +3

      I am annoyed at the outcome overturning Roe v Wade, but I think the court made the right decision, there is no constitutional right to abortion. The Federal politicians could make a law to make it legal in all states, however they haven't because they wouldn't get 50% vote.

      Crap games, wouldn't waste my hard drive space.

      • trapper on 04/07/2022 - 17:59
        +1

        The Federal politicians could make a law to make it legal in all states

        I don't think they can actually. Well at least it wouldn't be constitutional to do so.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_…

        It expresses the principle of federalism, also known as states' rights, by stating that the federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and that all other powers not forbidden to the states by the Constitution are reserved to each state.

    • Boodek on 04/07/2022 - 18:13
      +4

      Relativism is alive and well.

      • Spendmore on 04/07/2022 - 21:20

        Thanks to Einstein!

    • Gladioli on 04/07/2022 - 18:16
      +8

      It's all well and good to say there are situations (rape etc) that can lead to a baby having a bad life if they are born, but why do we assume that the only good answer is to kill them? How about instead of assuming life will be horrible for the child we instead put in place funding and support structures to ensure they have a good life? Instead of killing the kids how about we give them the best life we can? Wouldn't that be the more moral choice?

      • maverickjohn on 04/07/2022 - 18:35
        +1

        Yes it would be the more moral choice for the child of it were an easy thing for the mom to go through the process of delivering without the mom also living with an ongoing depression.
        You have to understand that of the mom develops depression which is 99% certain after a case like that. The genetic predisposition is also passed through to the child. In the chance that the child goes to a family and manages to thrive, that child may live a normal life still predisposed to depression. Honestly that is fine but that's best case scenario. Like I said the choice should be there. If there is a screening process to verify whether the case is legitomate is still a possible option but to completely deny is not a fair option

        • Gladioli on 04/07/2022 - 18:39
          +5

          Mom mom mom. I thought this was Oz bargain?
          On the rest of it, let's do everything we can to make sure the mother has a good life too. The answer to one act of violence is not more acts of violence. Let's respond to violence with love and care and support.

          • maverickjohn on 04/07/2022 - 18:42
            +1

            @Gladioli: Mum or mom I get it but, you also understand what I mean.
            I think you're not considering the feelings of the woman on this situation.
            I understand where you are coming from but the trauma is a trauma regardless

            • Gladioli on 04/07/2022 - 18:54
              +3

              @maverickjohn: Definitely a trauma. Let's treat it gently and do our best not to make it worse

          • CookedChook on 04/07/2022 - 18:57
            +3

            @Gladioli: Mom? Found the American. I assumed this thread was be brigaded, thanks for confirming.

            • maverickjohn on 04/07/2022 - 19:06
              +2

              @CookedChook: Nah far from it.
              I commonly misspell that as my wife and her family are from the Philippines and they use American English.
              To be honest for me it's not a big deal, but completely understand why me using that upsets some.

            • GrueHunter on 05/07/2022 - 19:05

              @CookedChook: You mean the word that we've had in Middle English since at least the 1400s, two hundred years before the English colonised Jamestown?

              That 'mom'?

              Do "gaol is the Uhstrayin spelling" next, that's always a good one

          • FabMan on 05/07/2022 - 16:28

            @Gladioli: "let's do everything we can"

            What are you personally doing to help such people? Well other than forcing them to endure things you won't have too?

      • rogsamsy on 04/07/2022 - 18:41
        +3

        Kill the rapist, not the baby.

        • FabMan on 05/07/2022 - 16:29

          So killing unwanted things is alright, well, as long as you decree what is unwanted.

          • GrueHunter on 05/07/2022 - 18:59

            @FabMan: Unwanted, school kids, same thing if I can open carry this sweet AR-15, yeah?

      • sting316 on 04/07/2022 - 19:20
        +5

        "Killing the kids"… They're not even sentient. They're not even human yet. You have to pay $11K in some US states to give birth. There are no support structures in place because it's privatised health. It's not just rape, it's not wanting to start a family, not being able to pay for yourself and a child on top of that which sees you on the streets. It's their body and the fact that white rich men dictate what they do with it is sickening.

        • Almost Banned on 04/07/2022 - 23:58
          +2

          How exactly can the product of two humans not be human?
          If it isn't human, what is it? Fish? Insect? Alien?
          No, you may not like it, but its human.
          As for sentient - do you also kill people in comas?

          • Miss B on 05/07/2022 - 07:11
            +2

            @Almost Banned:

            do you also kill people in comas?

            If the only way they can live is by being hooked up to another person, obviously yes.

          • sting316 on 05/07/2022 - 09:56
            +1

            @Almost Banned: I may not like what?
            If you think the state of being human is an accumulation of cells that have yet to form into a living, breathing organism is human then you should never have a period or ejaculate semen because you're 'killing potential' children'.

            You also know as well as I do that sometimes people never recover from comas. So I ask you, would you continue to use a life support system for years and years even though that person in a coma may never recover? Would you call that living to the person in the coma for that amount of time?

      • justtoreply on 04/07/2022 - 20:53
        +2

        How about they all grow up at your house?

        Fact is, raising kids well is hard as hell and you can't assume everyone can do it let alone do it for an unwanted child. What about the knock on mental issues for the mother?

        "Someone else should do it" isn't a valid approach unless you're volunteering it to be you.

        • Gladioli on 04/07/2022 - 21:55
          +1

          Do you have the same view about NDIS, aged care, job seeker welfare payments etc.? There are a variety of ways that we as a society collectively care for those less privileged than ourselves. Some of us contribute to that through taxes. Some of us also contribute by volunteering and even through simply caring for others who we know who are in these sorts of situations.
          Or would you also have us kill all the old people, people with disabilities and long term job seekers? Is that where your were going with that?

          • sting316 on 05/07/2022 - 10:06
            +3

            @Gladioli: All of those subsidies you've mentioned are already underfunded and have been trying to find other ways to make money outside of what the government can give them… Because we're billions of dollars in debt already.

            What you're ultimately doing is telling people, 'you have to bring this unwanted child into the world but I won't be doing anything to help you… A cause will help you. God bless.'

            Maybe think of other people's situations and that they're not as well off as you.

      • FabMan on 04/07/2022 - 23:02
        +7

        How about denying a 10 year old girl raped by someone not having access to an abortion. Forcing a child to endure that shit is a good idea? It also isn't a them, it is an it until it happens. Otherwise all your wanks are murders of potentional millions of lives.

        • Almost Banned on 04/07/2022 - 23:59

          Do you support killing the children of offenders of other crimes, or just rape?
          Do you support killing the rapist too, or just their child?

          • FabMan on 05/07/2022 - 01:08
            +6

            @Almost Banned: So you are pro making children suffer for your own pleasure? Your thinking is 'Hey, she was raped, now make her go through painful birth that could possibly kill or cause serious injuries and add to her mental suffering'?

            Seeing as cells in the womb are not a child, your ignorant questions are not relevant. Please go learn some basic biology as early on the clump of cells in the woman's womb are no more a child then the semen in your nut sack, if you have jerked off you've killed millions of kids going by your shitty logic. Thing is, semen dies by the billions and they have the potential to become a human, women are born with around a million eggs, a few hundred are ovulated, all with the potential to be a human, but they aren't, and each menstruation is not killing a human. The moment an egg is fertilised it does not make it a human, a collection of cells clumped against the wall lining of womb are not a human.

            Would you cut off a skin cancer if you found it? They are living cells, they are part of a human, but they aren't human. The collection of cells that can be aborted early in a pregnancy is not a human yet.

            In the US, all the states that have banned abortion also have the death penalty, so murder by government sanction is allowed. So those places trying to take the moral high ground of it is wrong to kill is absolute bullshit.

            • Gladioli on 05/07/2022 - 06:27
              +2

              @FabMan: Let's be honest, the whole rape scenario is a small percentage of abortions. If you have to revert to a scenario about a 10 year old girl to make your point about what is already one of the more extreme scenarios for justifying abortion, maybe deep down you realise it's not a good thing in all of the other less extreme scenarios (i.e. where it's a matter of convenience rather than rape).
              In those (the vastmajority of) cases, there is no sense in seeing killing the baby as the best path. I personally can't see it as the best path in any case, but surely you can see that it doesn't make sense in the less extreme cases? Why can't we do better than killing babies? There's a range of other options.

              • sting316 on 05/07/2022 - 10:11
                +5

                @Gladioli: Okay, let's look at other cases. The contraception didn't work. Now what? They specifically had sex with preventative causes and it failed. So now they must have a baby, because raising a child for the rest of their lives for something they planned to not have is the ultimate healthy resolution to this.
                Go away.

                • gizmomelb on 05/07/2022 - 11:00
                  +2

                  @sting316: as others have said - if child support were mandatory from conception, then there would be better birth control, guaranteed.

                  Also I know of many so called 'fathers' who do their utmost best to weasel out of child support, simply because they have lost control of 'their family' (as in 'their property'), so they punish the mother and children financially.

                • Gladioli on 05/07/2022 - 14:34
                  +1

                  @sting316: The answer is the same. The baby is worth protecting, it just takes more work and support from the community around them. I'm prepared to offer that support to the people around me, aren't you?

                  • gizmomelb on 05/07/2022 - 17:15
                    +1

                    @Gladioli: so just how many foster / adopted children do you have?

              • gizmomelb on 05/07/2022 - 10:57
                +2

                @Gladioli: you mean the real-news recent scenario where a 10 year old girl in Ohio was raped and was told 'it is an opportunity'?

                https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pregnant-ohio-10-year-old-gir…

                • Gladioli on 05/07/2022 - 14:37

                  @gizmomelb: I'm not saying this doesn't happen. As per previous answers, one act of violence isn't fixed with more acts of violence. Just because one girl wasn't treated with respect doesn't mean we can't do better. Or do you believe we are incapable of looking after each other? Are humans that garbage at caring for victims that the only answer is to kill the baby?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join