FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
TYT - Cenk goes ballistic over fundamentalist religion

TYT - Cenk goes ballistic over fundamentalist religion

(2:24) Host of The Young Turks Cenk Uygur responds to a story about a woman who died because she was denied an abortion.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Submitted as a guest (1822 days ago)
Hear you Cenk!
ReplyVote up (249)down (193)
Original comment
Hear you Cenk!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: greenman (1823 days ago)
He should get all the facts (or even some of them) before he overacts in typical american fashion. He's very OTT
ReplyVote up (197)down (174)
Original comment
He should get all the facts (or even some of them) before he overacts in typical american fashion. He's very OTT
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Think, then act. (1823 days ago)
The key facts in the case are: A woman in Ireland was told her baby would not survive. She asked for an abortion. She was told she had to wait for the heart to stop beating first. This happened, and the baby was removed. She contracted septicaemia and died from this. The prolonged wait to remove the foetus is believed to have contributed to her death. I think the anger is certainly justified.
ReplyVote up (205)down (197)
Original comment
The key facts in the case are: A woman in Ireland was told her baby would not survive. She asked for an abortion. She was told she had to wait for the heart to stop beating first. This happened, and the baby was removed. She contracted septicaemia and died from this. The prolonged wait to remove the foetus is believed to have contributed to her death. I think the anger is certainly justified.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: greenman (1822 days ago)
"believed to have contributed to her death" Nothing has been proven yet so nobody knows the actual facts yet except that a woman tragically lost her life in a country that has the best health care for expectant mothers in the world. (see U.N. statistics) What is also known is that there is legislation there that the survival of the mother takes precedent over the life of the unborn child. What is not known yet is whether there were any underlying medical conditions which may have led to her death or whether a termination would have stopped the onset of septicaemia or not. Oh and what is also known is that the Catholic church in Ireland said that the wellbeing of the mother is what matters first and foremost. So wait until all the facts are out there and stop blaming "Catholic" Ireland.
ReplyVote up (168)down (216)
Original comment
"believed to have contributed to her death" Nothing has been proven yet so nobody knows the actual facts yet except that a woman tragically lost her life in a country that has the best health care for expectant mothers in the world. (see U.N. statistics) What is also known is that there is legislation there that the survival of the mother takes precedent over the life of the unborn child. What is not known yet is whether there were any underlying medical conditions which may have led to her death or whether a termination would have stopped the onset of septicaemia or not. Oh and what is also known is that the Catholic church in Ireland said that the wellbeing of the mother is what matters first and foremost. So wait until all the facts are out there and stop blaming "Catholic" Ireland.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1822 days ago)
No one has mentioned yet that the mother in this case was not catholic. She was hindu. Part of Cenk's outrage here deals with the fact that some other religion's laws were forced on her in the hospital that caused her death. Its quite the hypocrisy when catholics demand a certain type of treatment in hospitals but when a non-catholic asks for a certain treatment in a catholic hospital, her requests are ignored. I think its typical and horrendous that religious groups demand tolerance and respect for their beliefs but are completely unwilling to extend that tolerance and respect towards people not of their own faith.
ReplyVote up (196)down (174)
Original comment
No one has mentioned yet that the mother in this case was not catholic. She was hindu. Part of Cenk's outrage here deals with the fact that some other religion's laws were forced on her in the hospital that caused her death. Its quite the hypocrisy when catholics demand a certain type of treatment in hospitals but when a non-catholic asks for a certain treatment in a catholic hospital, her requests are ignored. I think its typical and horrendous that religious groups demand tolerance and respect for their beliefs but are completely unwilling to extend that tolerance and respect towards people not of their own faith.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
JGA JGA (1820 days ago)
my hat is tipped sir, well said
ReplyVote up (192)down (249)
Original comment
my hat is tipped sir, well said
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1822 days ago)
"What is also known is that there is legislation there that the survival of the mother takes precedent over the life of the unborn child" Please supply link to this law. Her husband was informed that because it was a Catholic country it's abortion laws where in line with neanderthals. Stop pretending that this didn't happen because of religion. It did, and just like the history of religious bs, right minded secularists will put things right. The bible is a piece of garbage which lula's follow.
ReplyVote up (186)down (197)
Original comment
"What is also known is that there is legislation there that the survival of the mother takes precedent over the life of the unborn child" Please supply link to this law. Her husband was informed that because it was a Catholic country it's abortion laws where in line with neanderthals. Stop pretending that this didn't happen because of religion. It did, and just like the history of religious bs, right minded secularists will put things right. The bible is a piece of garbage which lula's follow.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: there aint no god (1823 days ago)
Expressed perfectly, if anything slightly on the mild side
ReplyVote up (173)down (211)
Original comment
Expressed perfectly, if anything slightly on the mild side
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Leaty (1823 days ago)
Brilliant, could not have expressed it better.
ReplyVote up (192)down (205)
Original comment
Brilliant, could not have expressed it better.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
glortman glortman (1823 days ago)
I don't think his anger is entirely misplaced, but it is more complicated than Cenk says. There is always some moral standard that guides lawmaking, whether it comes from someone's holy book, or from a group of men who think they know best, or from the majority decision of a misguided and confused citizenry. In some instances, the sky-god laws have served us very well, and the man-group laws have served us very poorly, and vice versa. The important thing in a society is that we must constantly move toward laws and policies that help the greatest number of people experience the greatest amount of good, and take into consideration times when we must honour the rights of the individual over the interests of the group.
ReplyVote up (203)down (366)
Original comment
I don't think his anger is entirely misplaced, but it is more complicated than Cenk says. There is always some moral standard that guides lawmaking, whether it comes from someone's holy book, or from a group of men who think they know best, or from the majority decision of a misguided and confused citizenry. In some instances, the sky-god laws have served us very well, and the man-group laws have served us very poorly, and vice versa. The important thing in a society is that we must constantly move toward laws and policies that help the greatest number of people experience the greatest amount of good, and take into consideration times when we must honour the rights of the individual over the interests of the group.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1823 days ago)
There is no law, anywhere which has its origins in a book rather than in people's minds. This is a common misconception about things like the bible. This is necessarily so as all books (including the bible, koran etc) have been written by men/women, meaning that people must have arrived at the moral (or immoral) conclusions in those books before the books existed. A book is a form of record, not a source of genuinely new information (unless you think it was in some sense "revealed", which is just religious lingo for "we don't really know who the author was"). When people start to take very old books which reflect out of date views of the world off the shelf and use them as an inviolable source of moral doctrine then this can only be harmful. Nice to see this speaker getting passionate about what's happening to his country, America needs more of this.
ReplyVote up (197)down (167)
Original comment
There is no law, anywhere which has its origins in a book rather than in people's minds. This is a common misconception about things like the bible. This is necessarily so as all books (including the bible, koran etc) have been written by men/women, meaning that people must have arrived at the moral (or immoral) conclusions in those books before the books existed. A book is a form of record, not a source of genuinely new information (unless you think it was in some sense "revealed", which is just religious lingo for "we don't really know who the author was"). When people start to take very old books which reflect out of date views of the world off the shelf and use them as an inviolable source of moral doctrine then this can only be harmful. Nice to see this speaker getting passionate about what's happening to his country, America needs more of this.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1823 days ago)
I'm an atheist but I have researched religion. I state this because of what a I'm about to say. Religious people know their canon (a.k.a. Bible/Koran) is written by people but they also believe that it was inspired by a god. So when Jesus said something, a human wrote it down. Jesus is a god and a son of a god so these rules were demanded of a god. Even before Jesus, Moses created laws but those were handed down from god to Moses and then written down by men.
ReplyVote up (196)down (168)
Original comment
I'm an atheist but I have researched religion. I state this because of what a I'm about to say. Religious people know their canon (a.k.a. Bible/Koran) is written by people but they also believe that it was inspired by a god. So when Jesus said something, a human wrote it down. Jesus is a god and a son of a god so these rules were demanded of a god. Even before Jesus, Moses created laws but those were handed down from god to Moses and then written down by men.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1823 days ago)
Okay Cenk, state just the facts like you claim you do in this video: LINK Nobody wants to hear your whining. Besides, you are way off base with your opinions. Of course the bible doesn't say nothing about abortion. The problem is that it does say you shall not murder and many people believe killing an unborn chid is murder. Fine if you disagree but that's where it's coming from. Think for once. Also, the bible does teach about stoning people to death if they disobey some laws. It also states an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. So what should the penalty for killing be according the the bible? You must understand that not everyone agrees with your point of view. Just state the facts like you said you do in the video linked above and keep your opinions to yourself.
ReplyVote up (249)down (1099)
Original comment
Okay Cenk, state just the facts like you claim you do in this video: LINK Nobody wants to hear your whining. Besides, you are way off base with your opinions. Of course the bible doesn't say nothing about abortion. The problem is that it does say you shall not murder and many people believe killing an unborn chid is murder. Fine if you disagree but that's where it's coming from. Think for once. Also, the bible does teach about stoning people to death if they disobey some laws. It also states an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. So what should the penalty for killing be according the the bible? You must understand that not everyone agrees with your point of view. Just state the facts like you said you do in the video linked above and keep your opinions to yourself.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Cenk's pal (1822 days ago)
Religion is all based on someone's version of something they think they heard, dreamed or imagined (also called 'divine spirit', 'revelation' or, more correctly, 'delusion'). It's all make believe, myth and superstition that allows someone to have power and control over people gullible enough to follow like sheep rather than think critically. Any story is open to individual interpretation and can be bastardised to a huge degree. The woman in question died needlessly. This guy is right, so up yours.
ReplyVote up (201)down (179)
Original comment
Religion is all based on someone's version of something they think they heard, dreamed or imagined (also called 'divine spirit', 'revelation' or, more correctly, 'delusion'). It's all make believe, myth and superstition that allows someone to have power and control over people gullible enough to follow like sheep rather than think critically. Any story is open to individual interpretation and can be bastardised to a huge degree. The woman in question died needlessly. This guy is right, so up yours.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1821 days ago)
Scores at the point of deciding whether to allow the abortion: Godfearing approach=2 definitely dead. Godless approach=1 definitely dead. Even a soccer comentator can see which one wins.
ReplyVote up (203)down (183)
Original comment
Scores at the point of deciding whether to allow the abortion: Godfearing approach=2 definitely dead. Godless approach=1 definitely dead. Even a soccer comentator can see which one wins.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1822 days ago)
So you're obviously for abortion and do not believe it's killing if you abort a child. That's fine and that's your opinion. You have to understand that your opinion is not always the same view as everyone else's all over the world. In America, the supreme court has ruled that abortion is legal but not always for late-stage abortions because 36 states have made that illegal. Additionally, The Supreme Court gave congress the power to ban certain late-term abortion techniques, "both previability and postviability". There are exceptions that allow for the abortion if the mother's would die without the abortion. So here's the big question. Did they know the woman would die if they didn't abort the child? Or, was that an unexpected outcome? I believe it was unexpected because she contracted a bacteria pathogenic organism that ultimately killed her? Who saw that coming in advance? Is it possible she would have had that bacteria anyway? What was the cause of the unborn child's death?
ReplyVote up (198)down (391)
Original comment
So you're obviously for abortion and do not believe it's killing if you abort a child. That's fine and that's your opinion. You have to understand that your opinion is not always the same view as everyone else's all over the world. In America, the supreme court has ruled that abortion is legal but not always for late-stage abortions because 36 states have made that illegal. Additionally, The Supreme Court gave congress the power to ban certain late-term abortion techniques, "both previability and postviability". There are exceptions that allow for the abortion if the mother's would die without the abortion. So here's the big question. Did they know the woman would die if they didn't abort the child? Or, was that an unexpected outcome? I believe it was unexpected because she contracted a bacteria pathogenic organism that ultimately killed her? Who saw that coming in advance? Is it possible she would have had that bacteria anyway? What was the cause of the unborn child's death?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: ... (1822 days ago)
You're an idiot.
ReplyVote up (194)down (193)
Original comment
You're an idiot.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1822 days ago)
Right, and you think you know what's best for everyone. So what part of my statement did you find to be idiotic and let me hear your supporting arguments against me. Just stating, "You're an idiot" is not very helpful to the conversation at hand.
ReplyVote up (187)down (190)
Original comment
Right, and you think you know what's best for everyone. So what part of my statement did you find to be idiotic and let me hear your supporting arguments against me. Just stating, "You're an idiot" is not very helpful to the conversation at hand.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1821 days ago)
A key point he was making is that he has the right not to believe in a religion. He is saying that these religious people are not satisfied with the freedom to practice religion but believe it is justified to push religious agenda as law onto others I.E abortion. If they believe the bullshit that is religion then fine but do not push your backward ways on people that don't based on fairy tails. If you are an atheist surely you can appreciate this.
ReplyVote up (160)down (686)
Original comment
A key point he was making is that he has the right not to believe in a religion. He is saying that these religious people are not satisfied with the freedom to practice religion but believe it is justified to push religious agenda as law onto others I.E abortion. If they believe the bullshit that is religion then fine but do not push your backward ways on people that don't based on fairy tails. If you are an atheist surely you can appreciate this.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1820 days ago)
So what your saying is all atheists are pro abortion?
ReplyVote up (156)down (148)
Original comment
So what your saying is all atheists are pro abortion?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
JGA JGA (1820 days ago)
No I was not, the sentence you undoubtedly are referring too is "if you are an atheist surely you can appreciate this.", cengland0 made reference that he is an atheist, my sentence prior to the one you have been confused with was what I was attaching that too, religious fairy tails are fine for one to beleive but not to push onto atheists, and yes if you are an atheist then they are all fairy tails
ReplyVote up (169)down (199)
Original comment
No I was not, the sentence you undoubtedly are referring too is "if you are an atheist surely you can appreciate this.", cengland0 made reference that he is an atheist, my sentence prior to the one you have been confused with was what I was attaching that too, religious fairy tails are fine for one to beleive but not to push onto atheists, and yes if you are an atheist then they are all fairy tails
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1821 days ago)
Oh yes, I do appreciate the freedom of religion that we enjoy in the US. Many of our ancestors moved away from Europe to get away from their forced religious views. Galileo believed that Earth revolved around the Sun after noticing 4 of Jupiter's moons and looking at our own moon. The Book of Joshua, in the bible, says "the sun and moon stopped in the sky for a whole day" (Joshua 10:12-14) implying that the earth is at the center of the universe, and the heavenly bodies must rotate around it. Galileo's observations seemed to disagree with that scripture. Galileo attempted to explain his theory to a couple of monks and as a matter of legality, Galileo was now preaching on Scripture, and therefore postulating religious theories. Scripture was business of the clergy alone, and at that time in European history, there was no separation between Church and State. Heresy was more than just grounds for excommunication. After an excommunication was issued, the state would step in and administer civil punishment, mainly because the state viewed heresy on the same level as high treason. Galileo was not excommunicated but was but was censured instead. This is basically a slap on the hand for him but, as you can imagine, people take their religion very seriously and the result of his observations could have been much worse for him. Hooray for America where I can be an atheist and not be arrested for it.
ReplyVote up (154)down (195)
Original comment
Oh yes, I do appreciate the freedom of religion that we enjoy in the US. Many of our ancestors moved away from Europe to get away from their forced religious views. Galileo believed that Earth revolved around the Sun after noticing 4 of Jupiter's moons and looking at our own moon. The Book of Joshua, in the bible, says "the sun and moon stopped in the sky for a whole day" (Joshua 10:12-14) implying that the earth is at the center of the universe, and the heavenly bodies must rotate around it. Galileo's observations seemed to disagree with that scripture. Galileo attempted to explain his theory to a couple of monks and as a matter of legality, Galileo was now preaching on Scripture, and therefore postulating religious theories. Scripture was business of the clergy alone, and at that time in European history, there was no separation between Church and State. Heresy was more than just grounds for excommunication. After an excommunication was issued, the state would step in and administer civil punishment, mainly because the state viewed heresy on the same level as high treason. Galileo was not excommunicated but was but was censured instead. This is basically a slap on the hand for him but, as you can imagine, people take their religion very seriously and the result of his observations could have been much worse for him. Hooray for America where I can be an atheist and not be arrested for it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
JGA JGA (1820 days ago)
Hi I was the guest you just replied too. Your statement 'I do appreciate freedom of religion' at its base is already flawed and out dated. It should be freedom of belief. Where is there freedom not to beleive if you so desire, speration of church and state as you are no doubt aware of, the only basis for one to beleive life takes place at conception is a religious book not scientific fact, therefore these laws are peddeling religion. Your reference to Galileo is strange to me. In essence some one somewhere went against the church because the church was wrong and was punished for it. This antidote cuts both ways, this is an example of how religion can be blind to reality and should NOT have authority over law, exactly the point the video was making...
ReplyVote up (174)down (169)
Original comment
Hi I was the guest you just replied too. Your statement 'I do appreciate freedom of religion' at its base is already flawed and out dated. It should be freedom of belief. Where is there freedom not to beleive if you so desire, speration of church and state as you are no doubt aware of, the only basis for one to beleive life takes place at conception is a religious book not scientific fact, therefore these laws are peddeling religion. Your reference to Galileo is strange to me. In essence some one somewhere went against the church because the church was wrong and was punished for it. This antidote cuts both ways, this is an example of how religion can be blind to reality and should NOT have authority over law, exactly the point the video was making...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
JGA JGA (1820 days ago)
If a religious person believes abortion is wrong they are free to practice that and do that themselves, why would you need to make it law? If an atheist "believes" (more like proves) that logic and science would suggest that abortion is okay to a certain point and for rare situations then they should also be able to practice this. Freedom of thought for all, no?
ReplyVote up (202)down (165)
Original comment
If a religious person believes abortion is wrong they are free to practice that and do that themselves, why would you need to make it law? If an atheist "believes" (more like proves) that logic and science would suggest that abortion is okay to a certain point and for rare situations then they should also be able to practice this. Freedom of thought for all, no?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1820 days ago)
That's not the point. If a religious person believes killing an innocent person is wrong then they should have the right to practice that belief. However, if a religious person believes killing an innocent person is okay, they should still not have the right to do that. Regarding abortion, some people believe that the fetus is a life even though it's unborn so it is an innocent life. There are disagreements about when this person is considered alive. Some believe at conception, others when it's born, the law says somewhere around 12-24 weeks (laws vary by country and, in the US by state) for late-stage abortions. Okay so to explain this again, their religious beliefs were that abortion was not allowed. Had they known the mother would have died if they let the baby die before removing it, would they have made an exception? You do not know that! The mother contracted a disease and could that have been predicted? Did the mother already have the bacteria in her system and that was the cause of the baby's death? Some of the people commenting on this page, including Cenk, believe they have all the answers but this is after the fact. Could it be they made the right decision knowing all the information they had at the time and their religious beliefs?
ReplyVote up (181)down (175)
Original comment
That's not the point. If a religious person believes killing an innocent person is wrong then they should have the right to practice that belief. However, if a religious person believes killing an innocent person is okay, they should still not have the right to do that. Regarding abortion, some people believe that the fetus is a life even though it's unborn so it is an innocent life. There are disagreements about when this person is considered alive. Some believe at conception, others when it's born, the law says somewhere around 12-24 weeks (laws vary by country and, in the US by state) for late-stage abortions. Okay so to explain this again, their religious beliefs were that abortion was not allowed. Had they known the mother would have died if they let the baby die before removing it, would they have made an exception? You do not know that! The mother contracted a disease and could that have been predicted? Did the mother already have the bacteria in her system and that was the cause of the baby's death? Some of the people commenting on this page, including Cenk, believe they have all the answers but this is after the fact. Could it be they made the right decision knowing all the information they had at the time and their religious beliefs?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Jason Sayler (1805 days ago)
Latest comment: You don't seem to grasp anything at the level that this is being discussed in this video. Thus, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, since you come off as just babbling nonsense in support of social, legal, moral, and medical injustice. Good luck with that "point of view" idiocy, when attempting to poo-poo some one pointing out superstitious foolishness that costs lives. Of course it is a matter of "opinion" and "viewpoint," whether reality or fantasy is the starting point of morality and what to do to others. But guess what -- not all "opinions" are equal. Even for a superstitious apologist of, as Cenk so accurately describes it, IMMORALITY, you have a lot of learning to do. I've heard far better attempts at twisting the facts. Ironic, that you would accuse others of doing what you make such an offensive effort to do in the very next section of your mindless blabbering.... But at least you can say that you're not so clueless on the hypocrisy, since that is indeed one of the tenets of being a fundie... Keeping one's opinions to oneself when it has to do with the rights and lives of people, as opposed to the SUPERSTITIOUS idiocy that threatens them, is such a moronic thing to demand. Get a clue, honestly... Just get a single clue.
ReplyVote up (191)down (185)
Original comment
Latest comment: You don't seem to grasp anything at the level that this is being discussed in this video. Thus, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, since you come off as just babbling nonsense in support of social, legal, moral, and medical injustice. Good luck with that "point of view" idiocy, when attempting to poo-poo some one pointing out superstitious foolishness that costs lives. Of course it is a matter of "opinion" and "viewpoint," whether reality or fantasy is the starting point of morality and what to do to others. But guess what -- not all "opinions" are equal. Even for a superstitious apologist of, as Cenk so accurately describes it, IMMORALITY, you have a lot of learning to do. I've heard far better attempts at twisting the facts. Ironic, that you would accuse others of doing what you make such an offensive effort to do in the very next section of your mindless blabbering.... But at least you can say that you're not so clueless on the hypocrisy, since that is indeed one of the tenets of being a fundie... Keeping one's opinions to oneself when it has to do with the rights and lives of people, as opposed to the SUPERSTITIOUS idiocy that threatens them, is such a moronic thing to demand. Get a clue, honestly... Just get a single clue.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1822 days ago)
" Nobody wants to hear your whining." Take your own medicine and stop watching his video's then.
ReplyVote up (177)down (182)
Original comment
" Nobody wants to hear your whining." Take your own medicine and stop watching his video's then.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Smarter Than You (1821 days ago)
You f*cking pr*ck. He is having a go at the religious fundamentalists who value the life of a doomed foetus over that of a living, breathing and conscious woman. Nobody in their right mind gives a f*ck about what the Bible does or doesn't say. You are asking him (even though he won't read this) what he would do because the punishment in the Bible for murder is death, despite him thinking it's a load of sh*te. Do you not see your stupidity and irony here? He DID state the facts, and his show is about reporting and then giving their opinions on the news, so telling him to keep his opinions to himself is just moronic. It really shows what an a*sehole you are when you tell him to stop whining, when he is speaking out because a poor, innocent woman died in horrible pain and suffering. W*nker.
ReplyVote up (173)down (283)
Original comment
You f*cking pr*ck. He is having a go at the religious fundamentalists who value the life of a doomed foetus over that of a living, breathing and conscious woman. Nobody in their right mind gives a f*ck about what the Bible does or doesn't say. You are asking him (even though he won't read this) what he would do because the punishment in the Bible for murder is death, despite him thinking it's a load of sh*te. Do you not see your stupidity and irony here? He DID state the facts, and his show is about reporting and then giving their opinions on the news, so telling him to keep his opinions to himself is just moronic. It really shows what an a*sehole you are when you tell him to stop whining, when he is speaking out because a poor, innocent woman died in horrible pain and suffering. W*nker.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Jacob Rees-Mogg on abortion and same-sex marriage
Jacob Rees-Mogg on abortion and same-sex marriage
Bernie Sanders responds to abortion question
Bernie Sanders responds to abortion question
What should happen to women who have illegal abortions?
What should happen to women who have illegal abortions?
Pregnant woman blasts anti-abortion protesters
Pregnant woman blasts anti-abortion protesters
TYT - Cenk goes ballistic over fundamentalist religion
TYT - Cenk goes ballistic over fundamentalist religion