From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
WtF, she was my biology teacher in 9th grade O_O Dudewheresmypizz4 15:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- VIH (would have been HIV's cure)
Um, no. VIH is HIV, just in some other language such as français. --Carlb 15:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
"So according to conservative ideology killing live babies is fine, but killing 3 day old embryos from women who’ve been raped several days prior, or from women who will die from the birth (baby and all) is wrong. The reason is conservatives strive to increase human misery; that of the mother in the slums and of the baby who can not be adequately looked after and will be as miserable as possible from the earliest age possible. Damned liberals, with their flip-flopping and godless and a blah blah blah blah!"
This seems rather passive-aggressive. I believe there was a mention about this kind of overly angry and sarcastic political trash talk in the Beginners section. --Marsh64 23:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you look at the Atheism article, you'll find similar stuff. Some people apparently think that humor on an article involves sarcastically trashing opposing viewpoints while reverting edits that actually poke fun at the article topic. -BaronGrackle 03:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'd noticed that, too (delayed response). On the Atheist page, they even try to defend their motives. The first couple of paragraphs here could use an edit, if someone can think of a way to tone down the hate and turn up the funny. --Aredvark 05:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Funniest...article....EVAR...Steevven1 03:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
i liek speling annd grammer too bee gud.
Remember, spellcheck does not mean correct grammar.220.127.116.11 18:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
What I wish..
I wish their was an abortion time machine...that would be awesome.
This article is supposed to be funny. Some of it is, but a lot gets marred when people begin expressing political opinions in pointless (statements of paraenthesis). I suggest we keep this as clean as possible and just enjoy humour in a difficult situation. --Aredvark 05:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Fixing the Controversy section.
This most certainly needs some cleaning up. The (now) first paragraph in the article could use some toning down, as well, but I didn't feel it was the point point of temporary removal from the article, since it was amusing in addition to hateful. In addition, the former first (now removed) paragraph clearly violates the basic ideas of how to write for Uncyclopedia.
I invite everyone to suggest rewrites for both sections of this article, though my main focus is the former first. Please do not return it until things have been ironed out.
Everyone's welcome to comment in the specified sections (under here, The One, and The Two) and make edits to the proposed paragraphs. I simply ask that any comments be signed. --Aredvark 02:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's the original paragraph:
People who believe that a) humans are created in God’s image; and b) women are useless pieces of garbage who must always do what men tell them to; believe that abortion is a form of murder. Although some people argue that killing a 3-day old embryo from a woman who’s been raped is not on a par with killing an actual baby, you know, those things you can hold in your arms and hug. Also they say that killing an embryo is not a par with killing a doctor or killing an intern in an abortion clinic who is just trying to make ends meet. In other words killing live thinking human beings is murder, killing human eggs isn’t. If that were the case then most women commit a form of murder every month! Lonely men, on the other hand, commit millions of murders every day!
Everything in the subheading should be what we'd like to see presented. This far, I have very little. The last two sentences are funny, but I'm not sure they can be worked in without being needlessly offensive -- not to mention ignorant, since it's zygotes, embryos, fetuses, (or babies) that get aborted, not eggs. Obviously silly stupid, like monkeys laying eggs is normally amusing, but small details in cases like this sometimes aren't. <-- Shrank due to relevance.
Thanks in advance for constructive help! --Aredvark 02:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Controversy over abortion
People who believe that a) humans receive life at time of conception, and b) women are useless and must always do what men tell them to believe that abortion is a form of murder.
I'm a little concerned with the tone of this paragraph. it could probably use a little bit of a face lift, OR, to even out the sarcasm, create a third section, Nomenclature of abortion supporters. I kind of prefer option the latter. --Aredvark 02:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Nomenclature of abortion opponents
One faction within the JCers takes more extreme measures. Some people have pointed out that when people who follow Islam blow up buildings due to their religious convictions they are labeled as “terrorists”; however this slim percentage who blow up abortion clinics in western countries are labeled "pro-life radicalists". There has been many attempts at finding good, politically correct and consistent terminology, such as "faith-based paramilitary service providers" or just plain "theocratic fascists". However, all of these proposals failed to be approved by a 55% majority of the house of sexual congress, also known as the pantheon of Hollywood celebrities. Democrats thought it was too offensive to call these people "ethically challenged"; this wasn't PC enough for them.
Few people in the JC movement support the faction, and fewer still know where such suuporters come from. One theory is that they spawned from a previous radical movement, where members took the oppsition to the point that they murdered pregnant women, stole their fetuses, and grew them in laboratories to make a race of super-human pachyderm chimeras. Investigations thus far have remained inconclusive.
Nomenclature of abortion supporters
Another proposed idea.
Needs a few more pictures
I noticed that this article needed a few more pictures, but I forgot to check with the discussion panel first. Was it ok that I added this picture? Lord Gneo 07:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Picture yes, caption no. You could make it relative to one section of the post, where you plan to place the picture. For example, if you want it in the Why Abortion is Good (or similar wording) section, you could caption it something like "Another positive outcome of abortion" or something like that.
- Or put it in the pro-choice section, and refer to it as some kind of pro-choice logo or (for lack of a better word ATM) propaganda. Just make it relevant and as nonhateful as possible. ;) (ALSO: I know that's supposed to be the umbilical chord, but the cross just looks like one crazy ass penis.) --Aredvark 15:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Addendum -- Ok, so, I totally read the caption wrong the first time. It's find. Just make sure you find a relevant section for the picture -- I think the positive aspects section is the best. Srry! --Aredvark 15:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, no problem! I put it in the religion section, because that made the most sense. And I see where you are comming from, with it looking like a crazy penis. But...it's not. Lord Gneo 07:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
'What Counts as a Fetus?' section
"however results will involve:(male) your dead kid will gang rape with a tentacle monster and a ghost chicken(2) Godzilla's wosrt enemy, Gayzilla will sing YMCA to your dad. and finally (3)The super devil will ass fuck The angry viedo game nerd and make you suck his burnt,boiled dick. (Female)Your aborted Kid will rape your husband and/or your god (2) It will replace your cunt with a 5000000,00000000,0000000 cocks,(3) it will make ya a bat-fuck insane crip-blood-mafia-yakuza bitch of the king baa, leader of the ghost chickens and owner of PETA(people ethcical torture to animal fuckers). "
Not funny - just stupid, eh? and hard to make sense of. I just didn't want to be the only one to think so and delete it outright 18.104.22.168 15:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, you're not the only one. --TheEnd 18:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)