Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 15677
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Thu Mar 11, 2021 3:15 pm

AirWorthy99 wrote:
Right, its not in the Constitution. Thanks for clearing that up, it appears I had misread what you stated.

BTW, note that I haven't said a single word on why abortion is right or wrong. For the record too. And for those anxiously hoping to attack me, there is no reason to attack. I am merely asking for the direct evidence on a statement said by a poster here.


There is no need for the above statement if your intention is to discuss the law. When your questions demonstrate clear misunderstanding of why things do/don't appear in the Constitution but are nevertheless established rights, it's anyone's perogative to point out the facts.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8078
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Thu Mar 11, 2021 5:27 pm

Interesting idea—infants as parasites. What’s next, a Modest Proposal to eat them?

Another interesting idea—a majority of voters get to empower mother’s to kill viable life, if it suits them. Or, in opposition, voters get to force mothers to carry viable life to term. Perhaps, we just remain silent on moral issues.
 
FGITD
Posts: 1695
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Thu Mar 11, 2021 5:33 pm

Perhaps we just remain silent on trying to legislate women's reproductive rights, why don't we try that for a bit?

It's amazing that these idiots will gleefully protest masks while also trying to govern women's bodies.

Try to justify banning abortion without using the religion crutch
 
MaverickM11
Topic Author
Posts: 18742
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Thu Mar 11, 2021 5:52 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Interesting idea—infants as parasites. What’s next, a Modest Proposal to eat them?

Another interesting idea—a majority of voters get to empower mother’s to kill viable life, if it suits them. Or, in opposition, voters get to force mothers to carry viable life to term. Perhaps, we just remain silent on moral issues.

Or reality, where voters get to force mothers to carry viable life to term, and then oppose anything that reduces babies' and mothers' mortality, and simultaneously exhibit vengeful bloodlust that would make the bible seem tame, thus confirming to the world yet again that they are hypocritical trash that have no morals.

FGITD wrote:
Perhaps we just remain silent on trying to legislate women's reproductive rights, why don't we try that for a bit?

It's amazing that these idiots will gleefully protest masks while also trying to govern women's bodies.

Try to justify banning abortion without using the religion crutch

Yes I'd also like to hear the pro life crowd tell us how 500,000 dead Americans are a job well done.
Last edited by MaverickM11 on Thu Mar 11, 2021 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4168
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Thu Mar 11, 2021 5:55 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Interesting idea—infants as parasites.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... h/parasite

A parasite is a small animal or plant that lives on or inside a larger animal or plant, and gets its food from it.


GalaxyFlyer wrote:
What’s next, a Modest Proposal to eat them?


Stopping something removing your nutrition vs actively consuming it are two entirely different things.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Another interesting idea—a majority of voters get to empower mother’s to kill viable life, if it suits them. Or, in opposition, voters get to force mothers to carry viable life to term. Perhaps, we just remain silent on moral issues.

Or allow humans to have decision making authority over their own property. Unless of course you think that the moral values of other people should hold precedence over an individuals property? It would of course make organ donation much simpler as we could come and remove a kidney or bone marrow without permission for those who may need it to survive. Personally I think permission in that regard is very important. I think that personal freedoms should trump those of a society lest society drive towards too much of a socialist agenda. I happen to like my kidneys right now.

Fred
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 5109
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:48 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Interesting idea—infants as parasites. What’s next, a Modest Proposal to eat them?

Another interesting idea—a majority of voters get to empower mother’s to kill viable life, if it suits them. Or, in opposition, voters get to force mothers to carry viable life to term. Perhaps, we just remain silent on moral issues.


If you are going to force a woman to carry to term, then how about this proposal...

1. The womans healthcare is 100% covered completely and in full for the entirety of the pregnancy and for any duration of prolonged issue afterward (complications, depression etc) by the state. No skimping allowed, the best healthcare available and at least whatever the best that is supplied to politicians

2. The childs healthcare and welfare is 100% covered for life by the state, as above - the state forced them into existence, the state gets to take 100% care of them

3. If the woman does not want to keep the child after birth, a current Republican Party politician in a public state office must adopt the child and all healthcare and welfare costs then transfer to that politician

4. Men cannot have sexual intercourse or engage in sexual activity without explicit permission from the state for each and every instance - there are no exclusions

How about that?

Or, how about we allow the woman the choice as to whether they want to carry to term and honour that choice as theirs? There are already limits on what is and is not a "viable life", past which a termination can only be carried out, so there are already safeguards in place.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23881
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:00 pm

AirWorthy99 wrote:
Right, its not in the Constitution. Thanks for clearing that up, it appears I had misread what you stated.

BTW, note that I haven't said a single word on why abortion is right or wrong. For the record too. And for those anxiously hoping to attack me, there is no reason to attack. I am merely asking for the direct evidence on a statement said by a poster here.


Driving is not in the Constitution, salaries are not in the Constitution, rent is not in the Constitution, clean water and food are not in the Constitution. Republicans love to scream about small government and keeping government out of our lives as much as possible but, when it comes right down to it, Republicans want to micromanage everyone based on their own personal opinions.

Don't like abortion? Don't get one. Don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay. Don't like being told when and where to drink? Don't drink. Seems pretty simple to me. Stop forcing everyone to live by Republican opinion.
 
emperortk
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:01 pm

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Thu Mar 11, 2021 9:35 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
Right, its not in the Constitution. Thanks for clearing that up, it appears I had misread what you stated.

BTW, note that I haven't said a single word on why abortion is right or wrong. For the record too. And for those anxiously hoping to attack me, there is no reason to attack. I am merely asking for the direct evidence on a statement said by a poster here.


There is no need for the above statement if your intention is to discuss the law. When your questions demonstrate clear misunderstanding of why things do/don't appear in the Constitution but are nevertheless established rights, it's anyone's perogative to point out the facts.


But show me in the Constitution where it says you have a right to point out the facts! :stirthepot:
 
petertenthije
Posts: 4279
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Thu Mar 11, 2021 10:05 pm

emperortk wrote:
But show me in the Constitution where it says you have a right to point out the facts! :stirthepot:

That would be the first?
 
MaverickM11
Topic Author
Posts: 18742
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Thu Mar 11, 2021 10:15 pm

emperortk wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
Right, its not in the Constitution. Thanks for clearing that up, it appears I had misread what you stated.

BTW, note that I haven't said a single word on why abortion is right or wrong. For the record too. And for those anxiously hoping to attack me, there is no reason to attack. I am merely asking for the direct evidence on a statement said by a poster here.


There is no need for the above statement if your intention is to discuss the law. When your questions demonstrate clear misunderstanding of why things do/don't appear in the Constitution but are nevertheless established rights, it's anyone's perogative to point out the facts.


But show me in the Constitution where it says you have a right to point out the facts! :stirthepot:

Sounds like socialism to me! :rotfl:
 
LMP737
Posts: 6252
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:32 am

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Where in the constitution says that abortion is a right?


This has little to do with the constitution. The people who wrote this law did not base it on their understanding of the US constitution, they based it on their cheery picked interpretation of the bible. To pretend otherwise is folly.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14638
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Fri Mar 12, 2021 5:36 am

seb146 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
Right, its not in the Constitution. Thanks for clearing that up, it appears I had misread what you stated.

BTW, note that I haven't said a single word on why abortion is right or wrong. For the record too. And for those anxiously hoping to attack me, there is no reason to attack. I am merely asking for the direct evidence on a statement said by a poster here.


Driving is not in the Constitution.


no right to shoot or have ammunition in it either.

Every time such a law comes up, a bill should be introduced to make manufacture, sales, purchase and ownership of ammunition or discharging a firearm without permission a felony, just to make that "its not explicitly in the constitution" slippery slope obvious to the stupid ones.

best regards
Thomas
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2677
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Fri Mar 12, 2021 6:39 am

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: They should sign a bill funding a few more hospitals, ERs, and urgent care centers. What a joke of a state.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Sun Mar 14, 2021 4:21 am

Aesma wrote:
Tyranny of the majority isn't democracy.

Why not?
 
Sokes
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Sun Mar 14, 2021 4:24 am

flipdewaf wrote:
...
I don’t think that a pregnant female should be forced to continue to give nutrients to a parasitic life form against her will.

You should have told me earlier. Now my son is already 12 years old.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 15677
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Sun Mar 14, 2021 5:31 am

Sokes wrote:
Aesma wrote:
Tyranny of the majority isn't democracy.

Why not?


Because it is an established precept of American democracy that a measure voted by majority should not be able to limit fundamental rights of others.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23881
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Sun Mar 14, 2021 5:50 am

Sokes wrote:
Aesma wrote:
Tyranny of the majority isn't democracy.

Why not?


We are still living under the tyranny of the minority and that is not democracy.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14641
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Sun Mar 14, 2021 4:21 pm

Sokes wrote:
Aesma wrote:
Tyranny of the majority isn't democracy.

Why not?


Fundamental rights, like the right to dispose of one's own body, are above electoral whims.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Sun Mar 14, 2021 5:40 pm

I was a drafted soldier in Germany. And while former chancellor Helmut Schmidt said that soldiers are citizens in uniform, to me it felt more like slave in uniform.
Speaking of India: the government interferes in all kind of things. For people to pay bribe, life should be difficult and troublesome. I feel fundamental rights are violated all the time. India is not a democracy?
What are fundamental rights?
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 15677
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Mon Mar 15, 2021 12:06 am

Sokes wrote:
I was a drafted soldier in Germany. And while former chancellor Helmut Schmidt said that soldiers are citizens in uniform, to me it felt more like slave in uniform.
Speaking of India: the government interferes in all kind of things. For people to pay bribe, life should be difficult and troublesome. I feel fundamental rights are violated all the time. India is not a democracy?
What are fundamental rights?


Your point is a non sequitur - we’re talking about fundamental rights in the context of US judiciary, not Germany or India.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Wed Mar 17, 2021 4:42 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
Your point is a non sequitur - we’re talking about fundamental rights in the context of US judiciary, not Germany or India.

I referred to "Tyranny of majority isn't democracy."
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 15677
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Wed Mar 17, 2021 5:05 pm

Sokes wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
Your point is a non sequitur - we’re talking about fundamental rights in the context of US judiciary, not Germany or India.

I referred to "Tyranny of majority isn't democracy."


Yes, within the context of American democracy. That was clear throughout the thread.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Wed Mar 17, 2021 5:20 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
Yes, within the context of American democracy. That was clear throughout the thread.

O.k., thanks for pointing it out.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2364
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Wed Mar 17, 2021 11:09 pm

Mocking a state with high infant mortality rates while living in a state with substantially higher abortion rates is pretty sad. All it says is you prefer eugenics to natural selection.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 15677
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Thu Mar 18, 2021 1:46 am

DL717 wrote:
Mocking a state with high infant mortality rates while living in a state with substantially higher abortion rates is pretty sad. All it says is you prefer eugenics to natural selection.


Disingenuous. Abortion rates say as much about a state’s access to ladies’ clinics as they do about individual preferences there. If a neighboring state has more clinics/access it’ll of course be higher.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2364
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Thu Mar 18, 2021 2:17 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
DL717 wrote:
Mocking a state with high infant mortality rates while living in a state with substantially higher abortion rates is pretty sad. All it says is you prefer eugenics to natural selection.


Disingenuous. Abortion rates say as much about a state’s access to ladies’ clinics as they do about individual preferences there. If a neighboring state has more clinics/access it’ll of course be higher.


Except when your neighboring states are low as well:

https://data.guttmacher.org/states/map? ... taset=data
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 15677
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Thu Mar 18, 2021 2:43 pm

DL717 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
DL717 wrote:
Mocking a state with high infant mortality rates while living in a state with substantially higher abortion rates is pretty sad. All it says is you prefer eugenics to natural selection.


Disingenuous. Abortion rates say as much about a state’s access to ladies’ clinics as they do about individual preferences there. If a neighboring state has more clinics/access it’ll of course be higher.


Except when your neighboring states are low as well:

https://data.guttmacher.org/states/map? ... taset=data


AR is within driving distance of 6-7 states with higher rates according to your link. Next?
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8703
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Fri Mar 19, 2021 1:12 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Democracy is great until the voters don’t match your ideas.

Ironic coming from someone that likely defends the Electoral College. Democracy and majority rule are awesome, except for picking the president; then the minority MUST have a greater say.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Liberals just LOVE Diversity until they find that people might actually be DIFFERENT.

Ah yes. The pot calling the kettle black. Remind me again which side of the spectrum is "censuring" (their version of canceling) politicians for how they've voted?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8078
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Fri Mar 19, 2021 4:00 am

moo wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Interesting idea—infants as parasites. What’s next, a Modest Proposal to eat them?

Another interesting idea—a majority of voters get to empower mother’s to kill viable life, if it suits them. Or, in opposition, voters get to force mothers to carry viable life to term. Perhaps, we just remain silent on moral issues.


If you are going to force a woman to carry to term, then how about this proposal...

1. The womans healthcare is 100% covered completely and in full for the entirety of the pregnancy and for any duration of prolonged issue afterward (complications, depression etc) by the state. No skimping allowed, the best healthcare available and at least whatever the best that is supplied to politicians

2. The childs healthcare and welfare is 100% covered for life by the state, as above - the state forced them into existence, the state gets to take 100% care of them

3. If the woman does not want to keep the child after birth, a current Republican Party politician in a public state office must adopt the child and all healthcare and welfare costs then transfer to that politician

4. Men cannot have sexual intercourse or engage in sexual activity without explicit permission from the state for each and every instance - there are no exclusions

How about that?

Or, how about we allow the woman the choice as to whether they want to carry to term and honour that choice as theirs? There are already limits on what is and is not a "viable life", past which a termination can only be carried out, so there are already safeguards in place.


How about the government doing their job—protecting the defenseless which used to be a core liberal ideal? How about recognizing centuries of settled law protecting the life of the child? Lastly, how about some personal responsibility? Oh, Black Lives Matter until black women have 4 times the abortions as whites, maybe that should be a BLM issue and families with the signs adopt those babies. That’ll never happen.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 15677
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Fri Mar 19, 2021 4:11 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
moo wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Interesting idea—infants as parasites. What’s next, a Modest Proposal to eat them?

Another interesting idea—a majority of voters get to empower mother’s to kill viable life, if it suits them. Or, in opposition, voters get to force mothers to carry viable life to term. Perhaps, we just remain silent on moral issues.


If you are going to force a woman to carry to term, then how about this proposal...

1. The womans healthcare is 100% covered completely and in full for the entirety of the pregnancy and for any duration of prolonged issue afterward (complications, depression etc) by the state. No skimping allowed, the best healthcare available and at least whatever the best that is supplied to politicians

2. The childs healthcare and welfare is 100% covered for life by the state, as above - the state forced them into existence, the state gets to take 100% care of them

3. If the woman does not want to keep the child after birth, a current Republican Party politician in a public state office must adopt the child and all healthcare and welfare costs then transfer to that politician

4. Men cannot have sexual intercourse or engage in sexual activity without explicit permission from the state for each and every instance - there are no exclusions

How about that?

Or, how about we allow the woman the choice as to whether they want to carry to term and honour that choice as theirs? There are already limits on what is and is not a "viable life", past which a termination can only be carried out, so there are already safeguards in place.


How about the government doing their job—protecting the defenseless which used to be a core liberal ideal? How about recognizing centuries of settled law protecting the life of the child? Lastly, how about some personal responsibility? Oh, Black Lives Matter until black women have 4 times the abortions as whites, maybe that should be a BLM issue and families with the signs adopt those babies. That’ll never happen.


For. Crying. Out. Loud. Enough with the race-baiting. That's not the issue, and you know it. Poverty is the biggest driver of abortion, not skin color. Abortion rates are high among American women of nearly all backgrounds if they are under or near the poverty line. Do you have peer reviewed research contradicting that statement? Yeah, nah. As for the 'settled' law, SCOTUS addressed that in spades in their balanced Roe take on the need to protect 14th, and to a lesser extent, 9th amendment rights.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nearl ... 2019-05-17

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lang ... 14-109X(20)30315-6/fulltext

https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2016/07/ ... ge-matters

https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l6424/rr

75% of women requesting abortion in the US are in poverty or in the low income bracket(7). The poorest 12% of women account for almost 50% of abortions and the poorest 30% for 75% of abortions(8). Abortion cannot be a solution for poverty; thereby surreptitiously allowing those in authority to abdicate responsibility of tackling socio-economic inequality.

The same is true in any country I have lived in or have high familiarity with.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 5109
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Fri Mar 19, 2021 6:34 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
moo wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Interesting idea—infants as parasites. What’s next, a Modest Proposal to eat them?

Another interesting idea—a majority of voters get to empower mother’s to kill viable life, if it suits them. Or, in opposition, voters get to force mothers to carry viable life to term. Perhaps, we just remain silent on moral issues.


If you are going to force a woman to carry to term, then how about this proposal...

1. The womans healthcare is 100% covered completely and in full for the entirety of the pregnancy and for any duration of prolonged issue afterward (complications, depression etc) by the state. No skimping allowed, the best healthcare available and at least whatever the best that is supplied to politicians

2. The childs healthcare and welfare is 100% covered for life by the state, as above - the state forced them into existence, the state gets to take 100% care of them

3. If the woman does not want to keep the child after birth, a current Republican Party politician in a public state office must adopt the child and all healthcare and welfare costs then transfer to that politician

4. Men cannot have sexual intercourse or engage in sexual activity without explicit permission from the state for each and every instance - there are no exclusions

How about that?

Or, how about we allow the woman the choice as to whether they want to carry to term and honour that choice as theirs? There are already limits on what is and is not a "viable life", past which a termination can only be carried out, so there are already safeguards in place.


How about the government doing their job—protecting the defenseless which used to be a core liberal ideal? How about recognizing centuries of settled law protecting the life of the child? Lastly, how about some personal responsibility? Oh, Black Lives Matter until black women have 4 times the abortions as whites, maybe that should be a BLM issue and families with the signs adopt those babies. That’ll never happen.


Oh look at that, a bunch of “what abouts...” where the *assumptions* to make those work is just what the other side want - a foetus is not a child until a certain time has passed, is not defenceless because it doesnt have the right to a defence until a certain time has passed, and BLM has utterly no place in this discussion other than to escalate it needlessly.

Stop criminalising womens bodies and rights. Start criminalising guns and gerrymandering and obstruction of voting rights.
 
MaverickM11
Topic Author
Posts: 18742
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

Re: #51 in infant mortality Arkansas signs near-total abortion ban

Fri Mar 19, 2021 2:03 pm

DL717 wrote:
Mocking a state with high infant mortality rates while living in a state with substantially higher abortion rates is pretty sad. All it says is you prefer eugenics to natural selection.

Wut. All it says is conservatives don't give a sh!t about life, babies, or healthy births. It is absolutely no coincidence that the states with the highest infant mortality are deep red.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosm ... tality.htm

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos