Abortion - No Matter What

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You will see a Ten Commandment-esque (#'s 5 - 10) code pretty much no matter where you go on this planet even if one looks back in time. The basics of morality are very similar, contrary to your position.

Think about it.[/quote]

[quote]
Yes, there are certain things that seem absolute, but couldn’t that be more because those things are literally human nature that kings recognized must be stopped in order for “progress”(whatever the kings considered progress) to be made?[/quote]

And I’m pretty sure I can find Native American cultures that do not share those values, but that will be weeks later when I have time to do some research.

263

So what’s wrong with putting something in the water that “forces” contraception, and then having to get a license to breed - ie just verifying you can afford a baby and aren’t mentally unstable. You get an “anti-contraceptive” pill and now you can make babies!! And those slutty strippers, felonous scum, and welfare check breeders can’t make children they can’t support; teenagers won’t have whoopsies, and college can be the sexcapade it was meant to be!

My mother knew a woman she worked with whose daughter had 2 abortions before age 13. Age 13…

I think if the pro-abortion folks are willing to admit its killing a living thing / murder, then that’s more than they’ve been willing to admit in the past. I also think if murder is ok, why can’t we euthanize the parents too? If it was deemed negligent and mommy and daddy have to end the child because they can’t afford it on their own - they get euthanized too! I see a reduction in population - more space for others - and more responsible actions.

And yes, I’m 100% serious. I think its funny this thread exploded in the period of 4 days. Should be discussing bodybuilding or strength building, not baby building :-P.

264

[quote]theBeth wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

not to be flippant but someone should really advocate oral/anal only before marriage
[/quote]

A good way to ruin your ass and put yourself in a colostomy bag before you’re out of your twenties. People don’t get married as young as they used to.[/quote]

Wait wait wait… I want further detail on this. What is this based on?

If what you said is true, homosexuals (of the male kind), adult film stars, and a few rather explorative folks are in a heep of trouble. Do you have proof of that statement or is this some joke/ploy I’m missing?

265

[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:

[quote]theBeth wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

not to be flippant but someone should really advocate oral/anal only before marriage
[/quote]

A good way to ruin your ass and put yourself in a colostomy bag before you’re out of your twenties. People don’t get married as young as they used to.[/quote]

Wait wait wait… I want further detail on this. What is this based on?

If what you said is true, homosexuals (of the male kind), adult film stars, and a few rather explorative folks are in a heep of trouble. Do you have proof of that statement or is this some joke/ploy I’m missing?[/quote]

A lot of gay men and pornstars begin to lose control of their bowels and have to have procedures done. I saw an interview with a pornstar once where she talked about doing a scene with a girl that accidentally took a dump on her chest. She just couldn’t control it.

266

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:

[quote]theBeth wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

not to be flippant but someone should really advocate oral/anal only before marriage
[/quote]

A good way to ruin your ass and put yourself in a colostomy bag before you’re out of your twenties. People don’t get married as young as they used to.[/quote]

Wait wait wait… I want further detail on this. What is this based on?

If what you said is true, homosexuals (of the male kind), adult film stars, and a few rather explorative folks are in a heep of trouble. Do you have proof of that statement or is this some joke/ploy I’m missing?[/quote]

A lot of gay men and pornstars begin to lose control of their bowels and have to have procedures done. I saw an interview with a pornstar once where she talked about doing a seen with a girl that accidentally took a dump on her chest. She just couldn’t control it. [/quote]

Man, if that’s true, that’s a shitty situation for all involved - pun intended. Nothing is very attractive about a colostapy bag… Maybe its the rough nature of it, I don’t know? That’s another case for “man to man relations” being a bad idea. I guess we’ll know in 20 years if the number of cases increases - invest in the bag makers now while you can.

268

[quote]pushharder wrote:

A good opinion against the bozo notion that we should kill the unborn less they enter this world in poverty.[/quote]

I think that this is an interesting counterpoint to the article you’ve posted.
http://scholar.harvard.edu/barro/files/99_0927_crimerate_bw.pdf

269

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I should say that though I am personally opposed to abortion, I wouldn’t be as strongly so if someone who murdered a pregnant woman could not face a stiffer penalty because of that. I just want consistency and justice-not a system run by emotions. I am a fan of the rule of law, not of the rule of the moment.[/quote]

If you kill a pregnant woman, you get charged with double murder.[/quote]

Exactly, and what sense does that make in a country with legalized abortion?[/quote]

Zero.

270

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

…Abortion and capital punishment are both the killing, with malice aforethought, of another human.[/quote]

Nope.

Malice is the intention or desire to do evil.

Capital punishment does not fit that definition.[/quote]

I would say killing someone who is not an imminent threat is evil. However, we don’t need to argue about that. Just realize that capital punishment gives the pro-abortion crowd an argument.[/quote]

I think it does precisely the opposite because of the distinction (always important) between guilt and innocence.[/quote]

Do you mean guilt or guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?[/quote]

Our legal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. Folks don’t go to death row without having been judged to that standard.
[/quote]

Just clarifying because innocent die in both capital punishment and abortion, but the former is okay because the number is much smaller I guess?[/quote]

Numbers do matter when the discrepancy is large. 1.2 million > 12. I am not saying the latter is right. However, there are clearly people who are to evil to live. For example, those animals in Africa who rape children, burn villages and murder families who need to be removed from the planet permanently.
I judge the capitol punishment thing as to whether or not I could pull the switch myself. Most cases I don’t think I could. I

In the end it’s a red herring to the abortion topic. It’s a different discussion. However, I think it’s a little backwards to be more concerned about the very few lives ended by capitol punishment, who are people who most likely did something very evil while conversely universally supporting the slaughter of millions of innocents in the act of abortion.
The facts are indisputable. The life you are ending is a human life and it cannot be replaced ever. This is a scientific fact.
If you accept the killing of a human life as an evil act, then you have no choice but to be against abortion. Hypocracy is defined by inconsistency. If you believe that human life should not be taken, then you cannot be consistent if you believe abortion is ok.

And the notion that ‘I personally don’t support it, but I won’t tell others what to do’ is a cop out, it’s weak and pathetic. It’s either wrong or it’s not. It’s not wrong for you, but ok for others. It’s also a lie, because when you declare that stance publicly, then you are claiming others should believe as you. If you believe truly in live and let live, or live and let die (cue Sir Paul), then for the sake of consistency, you have gagged yourself.

There is not an issue that is so clearly black and white as this.

272

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

A good opinion against the bozo notion that we should kill the unborn less they enter this world in poverty.[/quote]

I think that this is an interesting counterpoint to the article you’ve posted.
http://scholar.harvard.edu/barro/files/99_0927_crimerate_bw.pdf[/quote]

Do you understand that this idea swims into some seriously dangerous, shark infested waters?

[/quote]

No, I don’t think it does. It does provide some indication that what the pro-abortion crowd has been saying holds water. Just because you envision a slippery slope does not mean that it will happen, it hasn’t yet and Rov v. Wade is 40 years old.

274

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

A good opinion against the bozo notion that we should kill the unborn less they enter this world in poverty.[/quote]

I think that this is an interesting counterpoint to the article you’ve posted.
http://scholar.harvard.edu/barro/files/99_0927_crimerate_bw.pdf[/quote]

Do you understand that this idea swims into some seriously dangerous, shark infested waters?

[/quote]

No, I don’t think it does. It does provide some indication that what the pro-abortion crowd has been saying holds water.

[/quote]

It’s a rationalization for murder. Cold blooded murder.

Certain places in 1930’s Europe did similar type rationalizing to justify its hideous ideas and practices.

The slippery slope has already delivered dozens of millions of innocents over the past 50 years into the gaping jaws of “practicality” and “utility.” It has happened just not to the neutron bomb degree. Yet.
[/quote]

Just keep beatin’ that fallacy drum.

276

New York pro-eugenics protestors, 1915.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
It’s a rationalization for murder. Cold blooded murder.

Certain places in 1930’s Europe did similar type rationalizing to justify its hideous ideas and practices.[/quote]

Yup. But what’s really funny is where they got the idea in the first place.

277


Oh, and in case you’re wondering why Scandinavia seems to have more than its fair share of intelligent, beautiful people living in comparatively safe, well-run societies?

Eugenics, baby. Lots of eugenics.

Not saying it’s a good thing, but the results do kinda speak for themselves… in Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, and in excellent, educated English.

279

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
New York pro-eugenics protestors, 1915.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
It’s a rationalization for murder. Cold blooded murder.

Certain places in 1930’s Europe did similar type rationalizing to justify its hideous ideas and practices.[/quote]

Yup. But what’s really funny is where they got the idea in the first place.

[/quote]

True. I didn’t mean to imply the idea was necessarily spawned entirely in Europe. The transatlantic exchange of ideas, especially the eugenics idea, was in full bloom back when Adolf was a mere corporal under the Kaiser. The US certainly supplied its fair share of Kill the Innocents advocates.[/quote]

One of the most strident propagators of these ideas, it must not be forgotten, was Margaret Sanger, a big-time eugenicist and founder of the American Birth Control League, which we now know by its less in-your-face name, Planned Parenthood.

Sanger believed that the most efficient way to control crime and social disorder was to eliminate the “black and yellow menace” (ironic, inasmuch as she was a WASP), and the best way to do this was to sterilize a lot of black people, Asian people, and poor or stupid people of all races, while terminate any pregnancies they might already have going.

Luckily, she did not succeed in her evil plan, and America was able to grow into the vibrant, multicultural rainbow of a society that it is today.