The Abortion Thread

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
721

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Cortes and Kneedragger79. I have the studies in full for your review. Special thanks to anoynm for the help

http://www.scribd.com/therajraj1/d/98353437-Psychological-Responses-After-Abortion

http://www.scribd.com/therajraj1/d/98353422-More-on-Koop-s-Study-of-Abortion

http://www.scribd.com/therajraj1/d/98353415-Induced-Abortion-Mental-Health

http://www.scribd.com/therajraj1/d/98353389-Abortion-and-Long-Term-Mental-Health-Outcomes

[/quote]

Good for you for finally ponying up.

Unfortunately, regardless of how those mothers feel, every one of their children, about whom you appear to actually care not a whit, is still and will always be dead.

No matter which of the mothers in those studies feel happy, sad or indifferent about their choices, their children were still snuffed out in the womb. They will never come back. Ever.

And don’t you act as if I’m changing my stance on this. I let you know very early on that this was not finally that important to me at all.

The point I had been trying to drive home, that clearly still applies, is that your winning your point had become far more important to you than any actual suffering incurred by any of those women, or the actual fate of their children, the very real, no-study-required deaths they suffered at the end of a pair of scored forceps and a glass suction tube.

The entire time, it is the callous way that you have tried shoving our noses in this over and over and over again that I have been attempting to indicate.

Anyway, high five. Again. You win at the internet. Most women have no guilt about murdering their child. Oops, sorry, “terminating their fetus.” I forgot I am not allowed to use emotive language to describe something, even when that is exactly what it is.

722

You still insist no ‘no problems’? These sites were the first two I found when searching the internet. BTW you have never once addressed the issue of killing the child, that is why abortion is wrong. Prove the unborn are NOT alive and then you will have a case to argue with.

2.1.2
â??The causes for this stress disorder are really quite simple. The thing that has made the very existence of Post-Abortion-Syndrome debatable is the fact that it often does not surface until many years after the abortion. It is very common for a woman to say that she is fine about the whole thing, but later in live she finds herself engulfed in feelings of guilt, confusion, and exploitation.â??

Complications after Abortion
Bladder Injury

If your uterus is perforated, your urinary bladder can be perforated, too. This can also cause peritonitis (an inflamed, infected lining of the abdomen) with all of its pain, dangers and necessary reparative surgery.
Bowel Injury

If your uterus is perforated, your intestines can be perforated, too. This will cause nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, fever, blood in stool, peritonitis (an inflamed, infected lining of the abdomen) and death if not treated quickly enough. A portion of the intestine may have to be taken out, and a temporary or permanent colostomy may be put in your abdomen.
Breast Cancer
Women who have aborted have significantly higher rates of breast cancer later in life. Breast cancer has risen by 50% in America since abortion became legal in 1973.
Ectopic (Tubal) Pregnancy
An ectopic pregnancy is any pregnancy that occurs outside the uterus. After an abortion, you are 8 to 20 times more likely to have an ectopic pregnancy. If not discovered soon enough, an ectopic pregnancy ruptures, and you can bleed to death if you do not have emergency surgery. Statistics show a 30% increased risk of ectopic pregnancy after one abortion and a 160% increased risk of ectopic pregnancy after two or more abortions. There has been a threefold increase in ectopic pregnancies in the U.S. since abortion was legalized. In 1970, the incidence was 4.8 per 1,000 live births. By 1980 it was 14.5 per 1,000 births.
Effects on Future Pregnancies
If you have an abortion:
(1) You will be more likely to bleed in the first three months of future pregnancies.
(2) You will be less likely to have a normal delivery in future pregnancies.
(3) You will need more manual removal of placenta more often and there will be more complications with expelling the baby and its placenta.
(4) Your next baby will be twice as likely to die in the first few months of life.
(5) Your next baby will be three to four times as likely to die in the last months of his first year of life.
(6) Your next baby may have a low birth weight.
(7) Your next baby is more likely to be born prematurely with all the dangerous and costly problems that entails.

Failed Abortion

Failure to successfully abort the unborn younger than 6 weeks is relatively common. Sometimes, an abortionist fails to evacuate the placenta from the uterus. This means the pregnancy continues even though mother has endured the dangers and cost of an abortion.
Hemorrhage
One to fourteen percent of women require a blood transfusion due to bleeding from an abortion.
Hepatitis
This can occur if you have to have a blood transfusion after an abortion.
Infection
Mild fever and sometimes death occurs when there is an infection from an abortion. This happens in anywhere from 1 in 4 women to 1 in 50 women.
Laceration of the Cervix
About 1 out of 20 women suffer this during an abortion. This causes you to have nearly a 50/50 chance of miscarrying in your next pregnancy if it is not treated properly during that pregnancy. A high incidence of cervical damage from the abortion procedure has raised the incidence of miscarriage 30-40% in women who have had abortions.
More Miscarriages Later
Women who have had two or more abortions have twice as many first trimester miscarriages in later pregnancies. There is a ten-fold increase in the number of second trimester miscarriages in pregnancies that follow a vaginal abortion.
Perforation of the Uterus
Women suffer a perforated uterus in between 1 out of 40 and 1 out of 400 abortions. This almost always causes peritonitis (an inflamed, infected lining of the abdomen), similar to having a ruptured appendix.
Placenta Previa
Placenta previa occurs 6 to 15 times more often after a woman has had an abortion. In this condition your babyâ??s placenta lies over the exit from the uterus so that the placenta has to be delivered before the baby can get out. This causes the mother to bleed severely while the baby almost always dies, unless your obstetrician recognizes this condition and removes the baby by Caesarean section at just the right time in the pregnancy.
Post-Abortion Syndrome
Frequently after an abortion, women suffer a range of mental and psychological problems. These may include recurrent dreams of the abortion experience, avoidance of emotional attachment, relationship problems, sleep disturbances, guilt about surviving, memory impairment, hostile outbursts, suicidal thoughts or actions, depression, and substance abuse. These problems may occur days to years later.
Retained Products of Conception
If your doctor leaves pieces of the baby, placenta, umbilical cord, or amniotic sac in your body, you may develop pain, bleeding, or a low grade fever. Besides antibiotics and possible hospitalization, you may require additional surgery to remove these remaining pieces.
RH Incompatibility
Your doctor should be sure of your babyâ??s Rh blood type if you are Rh-negative, so that he can protect you and your next baby against future Rh incompatibilities. These Rh incompatibilities can:
. require that future babies will need transfusions soon after birth,
. cause future babies to be born dead because of the incompatibilities,
. cause future babies to die soon after birth because of the Rh incompatibility.

If your doctor doesnâ??t check the blood type of the baby you are going to abort, even in very early suction abortions done before eight weeks, fetal-maternal hemorrhage can occur, thereby sensitizing you if you are Rh-negative.
Severe, Rapid Bleeding
You may develop DIC (disseminated intravascular coagulopathy) from your abortion. This means your blood does not clot and you will bleed uncontrollably. DIC is extremely life threatening and difficult to treat. It occurs in 2 out of 1,000 second trimester abortions.
Sterility
After an abortion you may become sterile. This happens in 1 out of 20 to 1 out of 50 women. The risk of secondary infertility among women with at least one abortion is 3 to 4 times greater than that among women who have not aborted.
Unrecognized Ectopic Pregnancy
Your doctor may try to abort the baby but be unsuccessful because it is developing in your fallopian tube. Unfortunately this tubal pregnancy ruptures later and emergency surgery must be done to save your life. All women in their first trimester should have an ultrasound to make sure they do not have an ectopic pregnancy.
Young Women
Complication rates of abortion increase with younger, teen-age women. However, younger women who carry their babies to term have better births than older women if they get proper care. There is evidence that in 15 to 17 year old women, pregnancy may even be physically healthier than in women of older ages.

“In medical practice, there are few surgical procedures given so little attention and so underrated in its potential hazards as abortion. It is a commonly held view that complications are inevitable.”

  • Dr. Warren Hern, world renowned abortionist
    References
    A. Arvay et al., “Relation of Abortion to Premature Birth,” Review French GYN-OB, vol. 62, no. 81. 1967
    F.Avey, Canada Col. Family Physicians, “Pregnant Teensâ?¦” Family Practice News, Jan. 15, 1987, p. 14.
    Barrett et al., “Induced Abortion, A Risk Factor for Placenta Previa,” Amer. Jour. OB/GYN, Dec. 1981, pp. 769-772
    W. Cates et al., Amer. Jour. OB/GYN, vol. 132, p. 169
    Clow & Crompton, “The Wounded Uterus: Pregnancy after Hysterectomy,” British Med. Jour. Feb. 10, 1973, p.321
    Duenhoelter & Grant, “Complications Following Prostaglandin F-2A Induced Midtrimester Abortion,” Amer. Jour. OB/GYN, vol. 46, no. 3, Sept. 1975, pp. 247-250
    Herlap, New England Jour. of Med., no. 301, 1979, pp. 667-681 G
    Hilgers et al., “Fertility Problems Following an Aborted First Pregnancy.” In New Perspectives on Human Abortion, edited by S. Lembrych. University Publications of America, 1981, pp. 128-134
    Hilgers et al., “Fertility Problems Following an Aborted First Pregnancy.” New Perspectives on Human Abortion, University Publications of America, 1981.
    L. Iffy, “Second Trimester Abortions,” JAMA, vol. 249, no. 5, Feb. 4, 1983, p. 588.
    A. Jakobovits & L. Iffy, “Perinatal Implications of Therapeutic Abortion.” Principals and Practice of OB & Perinatalogy, New York, J. Wiley & Sons, 1981, p. 603
    Lanska et al., “Mortality from Abortion & Childbirth,” JAMA, vol. 250, no. 3 , July 15, 1983, pp. 361-362
    Levin et al., “Association of Induced Abortion with Subsequent Pregnancy Loss,” JAMA, vol. 243, no. 24, June 27, 1980, pp. 2495-2499
    Levin et al., JAMA, vol. 243, 1982, p. 2495
    E. McAnarney, “Pregnancy May Be Safer,” OB-GYN News, Jan. 1978 Pediatrics, vol. 6, no. 2, Feb. 1978, pp. 199-205
    D. Nemec et al., “Medical Abortion Complications,” OB & GYN, vol. 51, no. 4, April 1978, pp. 433-436
    Panayotou et al., “Induced Abortion & Ectopic Preg.” Am J.OB-GYN, 1972 114:507
    Puyenbeck and Stolte, “Relationship Between Spontaneous and Induced Abortion, and Second Trimester Abortion Subsequently,” Europ. J. OB-GYN, Reprod. Biol. 14, 1983, 299-309.
    Ratter et al., “Effect of Abortion on Maturity of Subsequent Pregnancy,” Med. Jour. of Australia, June 1979, pp. 479-480
    Richardson & Dickson, “Effects of Legal Termination on Subsequent Pregnancy,” British Med. Jour., vol. 1, 1976, pp. 1303-4
    L. Roth et al., “Increased Menstrual Symptoms Among Women Who Used Induced Abortion,” Amer. Jour. OB/GYN, vol. 127, Feb. 15, 1977, p. 356
    Rubin et al., “Fatal Ectopic Pregnancy After Attempted Induced Abortion,” JAMA, vol. 244, no. 15, Oct. 10, 1980
    J.A. Stallworthy et al., “Legal Abortion: A Critical Assessment of its Risks,” The Lancet, Dec. 4, 1971
    L. Talbert, Univ. of NC, “DIC More Common Threat with Use of Saline Abortion,” Family Practice News, vol. 5, no. 19, Oct. 1975
    D. Trichopoulos et al., “Induced Abortion & Secondary Infertility,” British Jour. OB/GYN, vol. 83, Aug. 1976, pp. 645-650
    U.S. Dept. H.H.S., Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, vol. 33, no. 15, April 20, 1984
    White et al., “D.I.C Following Three Mid-Trimester Abortions,” Anesthesiology, vol. 58, 1983, pp. 99-100
    Wright et al., “Secondary Trimester Abortion after Vaginal Termination of Pregnancy,” The Lancet, June 10, 1972
    Information prepared by: Laurence J. Burns, D.O., Board Certified in Obstetrics & Gynecology, I. Dale Carroll, M.D., Board Certified in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Ronald E. Graeser, D.O., Board Certified in Family Practice.
    Abnormal Bleeding After a D&C | Healthfully

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Cortes and Kneedragger79. I have the studies in full for your review. Special thanks to anoynm for the help

http://www.scribd.com/therajraj1/d/98353437-Psychological-Responses-After-Abortion

http://www.scribd.com/therajraj1/d/98353422-More-on-Koop-s-Study-of-Abortion

http://www.scribd.com/therajraj1/d/98353415-Induced-Abortion-Mental-Health

http://www.scribd.com/therajraj1/d/98353389-Abortion-and-Long-Term-Mental-Health-Outcomes

[/quote]

723

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Pat, Jewbacca, Countinbeans

yes when in doubt use the Hitler/Nazi, eugenics reference, well done. What you guys fail to recognize is that nobody is saying “make poor people get abortions” people are saying "let these women have a chance to break the cycle, or at least not bring in one more unwanted, uncared for child. When you always fall back on Nazis and the “final solution” I have to chuckle, Hitler was one man and his final solution killed millions, abortions are performed on 1.5 million women in the US each year, there is no “mastermind” forcing this action, this is 1.5 million women choosing this option independently, comparing the two really lets Hitler off the hook.[/quote]

Well, I for one, didn’t make any comparisons to Hitler. That is typically a fallacious argument and it typically irks the shit out of me.

I was seriously confused, because your post sounds an awful lot like eugenics.

Now I’ve seen some hippies try and pass off things like vaccination, high-fructose corn syrup and fluoride as “soft kill” eugenics. (I have an eclectic lot of friends.) I am not expert, and really haven’t looked too far into want the “soft kill” part really means, but I have a basic understanding of what eugenics is.

And in my humble opinion, your post seriously sounds like it, so I asked if that is what you were trying to say. That wasn’t an attack, it wasn’t a judgement of your position. If you believe in it, you do. Plenty of people do, and a whole lot of people (referred to as “tinfoil hat wearing” by some) believe our (USA) very own government is taking part in it, silently.

So, back to the point I was going to make:

Your post that spawned my question sounds like eugenics to me. You say I am misinterpreting your tone, and fine, I will accept that premise for the sake of discussion.

So are you saying that these kids are better off not being born? (If so, what percentage are you proposing are better off? 100%? 80%? 49.62%?)

Are you suggesting that our society is better off without these kids? (If so, is this because young, poor women are more likely based on http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html to have one?)

edit: have v. haven’t
edit 2: wrong have, lol

724

Jesus there are so many typos in that post… Fuck it, you get my point.

725

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Jesus there are so many typos in that post… Fuck it, you get my point.[/quote]

Lol, I completely understand.

726

Beans,

First of all eugenics and abortion aren’t the same. Eugenics is a willful design to breed out “bad” genetic traits, and while abortion may be one facet of eugenics it is by no means the ideal, eugenics would involve a selected breeding process designed to further strong genetic matches while keeping weak genes out of the pool, abortion would be used only as a last resort to stop a pregnancy that has resulted in a genetic abnormality.

Abortion is more likely to be used as a response to economic, rather than genetic misfortune, poor people are more likely to have abortions because they are fucking poor. You can’t breed poor out of the gene pool.
I just favor choice.

727

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Pat, Jewbacca, Countinbeans

yes when in doubt use the Hitler/Nazi, eugenics reference, well done. What you guys fail to recognize is that nobody is saying “make poor people get abortions” people are saying "let these women have a chance to break the cycle, or at least not bring in one more unwanted, uncared for child. When you always fall back on Nazis and the “final solution” I have to chuckle, Hitler was one man and his final solution killed millions, abortions are performed on 1.5 million women in the US each year, there is no “mastermind” forcing this action, this is 1.5 million women choosing this option independently, comparing the two really lets Hitler off the hook.[/quote]

Just say strawman as your response next time they use a Hitler reference, its true and they always use that response on us.[/quote]

False Dichotomy.

728

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Beans,

First of all eugenics and abortion aren’t the same. Eugenics is a willful design to breed out “bad” genetic traits, and while abortion may be one facet of eugenics it is by know means the ideal, eugenics would involve a selected breeding process designed to further strong genetic matches while keeping weak genes out of the pool, abortion would be used only as a last resort to stop a pregnancy that has resulted in a genetic abnormality.
Abortion is more likely to be used as a response to economic, rather than genetic misfortune, poor people are more likely to have abortions because they are fucking poor. You can’t breed poor out of the gene pool.
I just favor choice. [/quote]

I was going to say a knife can be used to kill a man or slice bread.

729

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/force-abortion-hubby-in-hiding/story-fn6s850w-1226409650468

730

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Beans,

First of all eugenics and abortion aren’t the same. Eugenics is a willful design to breed out “bad” genetic traits, and while abortion may be one facet of eugenics it is by know means the ideal, eugenics would involve a selected breeding process designed to further strong genetic matches while keeping weak genes out of the pool, abortion would be used only as a last resort to stop a pregnancy that has resulted in a genetic abnormality.[/quote]

Thanks for the lesson in what the difference is, I knew that and you are largely ignoring the substance of my post, why? You didn’t answer my questions, why?

I’ll ask a couple more that you will likely ignore:

What “genetic abnormality” should we be aborting?

Or rather:

What characteristics are typical of a fetus that should be removed from the womb by another man’s hand?

And I’m telling you, the tone of your previous post sure-as-shit made it sound like this was a good thing. You certainly sounded like it was a positive there were less poor people running around.

Sure you could.

And I’m not judging you for that. I tip my hat for you having the backbone to believe in something and come here and talk about it.

After all, that is all we are doing is talking.

731

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Beans,

First of all eugenics and abortion aren’t the same. Eugenics is a willful design to breed out “bad” genetic traits, and while abortion may be one facet of eugenics it is by know means the ideal, eugenics would involve a selected breeding process designed to further strong genetic matches while keeping weak genes out of the pool, abortion would be used only as a last resort to stop a pregnancy that has resulted in a genetic abnormality.[/quote]

Thanks for the lesson in what the difference is, I knew that and you are largely ignoring the substance of my post, why? You didn’t answer my questions, why?

I’ll ask a couple more that you will likely ignore:

What “genetic abnormality” should we be aborting?

Or rather:

What characteristics are typical of a fetus that should be removed from the womb by another man’s hand?

And I’m telling you, the tone of your previous post sure-as-shit made it sound like this was a good thing. You certainly sounded like it was a positive there were less poor people running around.

Sure you could.

And I’m not judging you for that. I tip my hat for you having the backbone to believe in something and come here and talk about it.

After all, that is all we are doing is talking.[/quote]

Just a friendly warning, beans, you’re wasting your time with this guy. He is in no way interested in arguing fairly or even sanely. He calls himself a church-going Catholic, of all things, and is the most conflicted, twisted, intellectually oafish poster I’ve ever encountered. He makes Lixy look like a reasonable debater.

I’m convinced he’s somebody like HeadHunter just here to stir up shit; as the alternative is that there really is someone this conflicted and confused and miserable out there. And I honestly do not want to believe that.

Again, just warning you in case you didn’t know yet. He’s a master contortionist, elastic as Plastic Man. You’ll never, ever “win” an argument against him.

732

Beans,

I never said we “should” be breeding things out of the gene pool, not once, I said it is a persons individual choice, there is a huge fucking difference. As far as it being a good or bad thing I think that sort of moral relativism is best left to the woman faced with the choice, I don’t see me as having much say (or interest) in her decision.

As far as breeding poor out of the gene pool, your answer “sure you could” makes me wonder what you’re talking about. You can breed stupid out (maybe) but there are plenty of stupid rich people, and plenty of poor smart people, rich and poor is a combination of things (luck, work ethic, starting point, goals etc.) you can only remove some factors, you can’t assure wealth. Additionally the way I understand it, in capitalism there will always be an underclass, wealth is not infinite is it?

733

Cortes,

For a guy that refuses to chat with me, you sure chat about me a lot, you’re like a 4th grade girl schoolgirl, I would think you would have put my posts on ignore or something sensible like that.

734

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Giving a shit about an unborn child is sweet, letting that child grow up in poverty and neglect because it’s “not my problem” is evil. So feel free to explain how you would change that, realistically that is, I’d love to see your answer. [/quote]

It is their problem, but they will just blame it on the liberals somehow.[/quote]

False Dichotomy.

You can’t change poverty, it is going to always be there. Christians don’t hate poverty: we love the poor, though. We give large amounts of money to ease unnecessary suffering where possible. However, we haven’t fallen in the trap of “hating” poverty because at some point when you hate poverty you come to hate the poor because it goes against your sense of pride. I grew up in poverty until rather recently, I was and still am the happiest kid on the block. So, are my friends and family that lived and live in poverty.

735

BC,

“False Dichotomy”-A dichotomy is a set of two mutually exclusive, jointly exhaustive alternatives. Dichotomies are typically expressed with the words “either” and “or”, like this: “Either the test is wrong or the program is wrong.”

A false dichotomy is a dichotomy that is not jointly exhaustive (there are other alternatives), or that is not mutually exclusive (the alternatives overlap), or that is possibly neither. Note that the example given above is not mutually exclusive, since the test and the program could both be wrong. It’s not jointly exhaustive either, since they could both be correct, but it could be a hardware error, a compiler error and so on.

Despite your post being one long generalization “We love…We give… We haven’t…” I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you actually have a point regarding my whole post and your initial statement. While I am sure you and your friends were all the “happiest kids on the block” that has no bearing on the argument I made. I did not say we need to abort the poor, I said that if you plan to stop abortions, what is your plan for the 1.6 million kids (70% of whom will be on public assistance) that are born into a situation where they are, at the very least, not wanted.

Cutting my words into usable soundbites is clever but disingenuous, I gave a viable range of options, raise taxes, ignore the problem, reallocate tax monies, or give me another answer, I didn’t present a dichotomy I presented a range of options including the ability to add your own.

736

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Beans,

I never said we “should” be breeding things out of the gene pool, not once, [/quote]

I don’t believe I claimed you did. I believe I claimed it seemed you implied it. And I also believe I conceded to the fact you didn’t, when you said you didn’t.

Now that we have that out of the way:

I understand that. How does that pertain to the stats you listed in reference to the extra burden these kids would cause if they were left to be born?

If you don’t have “a say or interest in her decision” why do you require that the pro-life have an interest in fostering and caring for kids in need?

I mean, if you can justify your separation from her choice, why can’t they justify their separation from aiding the needy?

It is quite simple.

For starters: Stop giving tax incentives and government assistance programs that encourage poor people to reproduce. Mandate a “sustainability” clause in human relationships, require a marriage application that mirrors a mortgage application. Have government funded birth control for low wage earners, and have the government fund abortions. Require military service for all males in the country for at least 2 years. Subsidize alcohol sales and legalize all narcotics, and give tax breaks for stores to open in in certain neighborhoods. Push lottery, gambling and gun ownership.

Now these are not what I want to see happen, they are just some of the things you can do to rid the good 'ol US of A of all those burdensome poor folk.

Luck? Luck is when preparation meets opportunity. Blow me the rich are rich because of luck… That is utter bullshit.

Goals? So it is okay to be lazy? Not having goals is justification for living in squalor and being poor? Bullshit again.

Do some have more opportunity than others? Sure. I would like to take this moment to point out a black man is president of the United States… Anyone can achieve. Ask me 20 years ago if a black dude would get elected, I would have laughed at you. Shit 10 years ago I would have too.

Underclass =/= poor. Large difference.

[quote]wealth is not infinite is it?

[/quote]

Why not?

737

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Just a friendly warning, beans, you’re wasting your time with this guy. [/quote]

haha, Thanks.

I’m just bullshitting around anyway. So no worries.

738

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:<<< or give me another answer, >>>[/quote]What do you figure the difference was when these problems were a rarity?

739

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Giving a shit about an unborn child is sweet, letting that child grow up in poverty and neglect because it’s “not my problem” is evil. So feel free to explain how you would change that, realistically that is, I’d love to see your answer. [/quote]

It is their problem, but they will just blame it on the liberals somehow.[/quote]

False Dichotomy.

You can’t change poverty, it is going to always be there. Christians don’t hate poverty: we love the poor, though. We give large amounts of money to ease unnecessary suffering where possible. However, we haven’t fallen in the trap of “hating” poverty because at some point when you hate poverty you come to hate the poor because it goes against your sense of pride. I grew up in poverty until rather recently, I was and still am the happiest kid on the block. So, are my friends and family that lived and live in poverty. [/quote]

Do you read what I say or just pick out keywords and assume I meant something else?

740

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Beans,

I never said we “should” be breeding things out of the gene pool, not once, [/quote]

I don’t believe I claimed you did. I believe I claimed it seemed you implied it. And I also believe I conceded to the fact you didn’t, when you said you didn’t.

Now that we have that out of the way:

I understand that. How does that pertain to the stats you listed in reference to the extra burden these kids would cause if they were left to be born?

If you don’t have “a say or interest in her decision” why do you require that the pro-life have an interest in fostering and caring for kids in need?

I mean, if you can justify your separation from her choice, why can’t they justify their separation from aiding the needy?

It is quite simple.

For starters: Stop giving tax incentives and government assistance programs that encourage poor people to reproduce. Mandate a “sustainability” clause in human relationships, require a marriage application that mirrors a mortgage application. Have government funded birth control for low wage earners, and have the government fund abortions. Require military service for all males in the country for at least 2 years. Subsidize alcohol sales and legalize all narcotics, and give tax breaks for stores to open in in certain neighborhoods. Push lottery, gambling and gun ownership.

Now these are not what I want to see happen, they are just some of the things you can do to rid the good 'ol US of A of all those burdensome poor folk.

Luck? Luck is when preparation meets opportunity. Blow me the rich are rich because of luck… That is utter bullshit.

Goals? So it is okay to be lazy? Not having goals is justification for living in squalor and being poor? Bullshit again.

Do some have more opportunity than others? Sure. I would like to take this moment to point out a black man is president of the United States… Anyone can achieve. Ask me 20 years ago if a black dude would get elected, I would have laughed at you. Shit 10 years ago I would have too.

Underclass =/= poor. Large difference.

[quote]wealth is not infinite is it?

[/quote]

Why not?[/quote]

Beans,

The stats I listed were meant to illustrate that eliminating abortion comes with a cost, and if we are no willing to accept that cost we need to come up with an alternative. i hear people saying that abortion is wrong and in the next breath saying no more taxes, so who pays for the kids?

The difference between my stance and that of the anti-abortion crowd is that I am not forcing anyone to do something that comes with an 18 year price tag. If you are against abortion fine, but trying to legislate its end means that you are adding a financial burden to society, not having a plan to deal with that burden is just a bullshit way to make yourselves feel better when you sleep at night, while other people go to bed hungry.

“Stop giving tax incentives and government assistance programs that encourage poor people to reproduce. Mandate a “sustainability” clause in human relationships, require a marriage application that mirrors a mortgage application.”
So you think that everyone that had a marriage and a mortgage is still financially solvent? There is no way to guarantee people don’t become poor, no matter what sort of plan you come up with. You cannot breed out poor because poor isn’t always a situation you are born into.

“Luck? Luck is when preparation meets opportunity. Blow me the rich are rich because of luck… That is utter bullshit.”
Seriously, read the whole fucking quote. I didn’t say luck is the reason for success, I said it is a component, if you don’t think it is then I suppose neither I nor business professors from a host of MBA programs can change your mind (Cornell, Stanford, and my professors from SU), luck is a component in everything from being promoted out of the mailroom to Super Bowl victories, so is hard work specific goals etc. just like I said above.

“Goals? So it is okay to be lazy? Not having goals is justification for living in squalor and being poor? Bullshit again”
Put the whole fucking quote together. Quantifiable goals are associated with success, not having goals is associated with lower income levels. I have no idea how you got what you said out of my post.

“Do some have more opportunity than others? Sure. I would like to take this moment to point out a black man is president of the United States… Anyone can achieve”
Sure, anyone can, or maybe he’s just an odd LUCKY exception. Blacks make up 13% of the population, but not 13% of the representation in congress, the senate or past presidents, they don’t make up 13% of the richest Americans, 13% of CEO’s etc. I wonder why that is?

oh here’s why

“Ask me 20 years ago if a black dude would get elected, I would have laughed at you. Shit 10 years ago I would have too.”

Yes anyone can achieve, not that you think they can really, but whatever, I get your point.

“underclass =/= poor. Large difference”

I misspoke, there will always be poor. Maybe you are looking for wealth redistribution? the difference between a future like “BladeRunner” or the 2nd half of “WALL-E”

wealth is not infinite is it?
“Why not?”
Goods are scarce, and everything is limited, then wealth must be limited also. There is only so much gold in the world, and one person cannot own 120% of all the gold on the earth, because 100% is the biggest share anyone could acquire. Wealth is finite because the accumulation of goods has a limit. Hell at a certain point you even run out of intangible goods. Not everyone can have everything.