Man, I Just Heard a Spokeswoman From Planned Parenthood on CNN

[frigidweirdo]

She states that if 500 million dollars is cut to PPH that there will be children born with no support. Meaning, no support from their birth right parents. In other words, its better to abort a child than to offer it up for adoption.

That organization is straight up evil

-Geaux

Why is that evil? Many kids who go through the adoption system don't come out of it good.

Is it really our prerogative to decide a baby's life won't be worth living so it's okay to destroy the developing body in violent ways?

Well we get to decide if the sperm doesn't go in or not, right? Is it really our prerogative or should we make sure we're banging day in day out not to waste any of that sperm?

At what point do you stop?

Some people say that a baby isn't a baby until it's able to survive on its own, ie, once it's been born.
Others say when it shows signs of being a human in the womb, what, 3-4 months. I think that abortions shouldn't be carried out after this time unless absolutely necessary.
But others might go way back to the sperm.

The issue here is for me is that the planet is of limited size. There are seven billion people and it's pushing this planet to its limits now, and there seems to be an increase. So, either there is control over the population or there will be war which is much more violent, don't you think? If food scarcity becomes more of a problem, if fighting over resources becomes more of a problem, then yes, we need to control humanity.

Do you stop to think about the life of the cow you're eating? It's life too? Life that is thrown away without even a second's thought by most people.

1. We're talking about human life, not bovine.
2. Sperm is not a human being.
3. A baby cannot survive on its own after birth. In fact, not until several years later. Thus, "viability" as a measure for abortion is a crock.

No, we're talking about LIFE, not just human life.

Sperm isn't a human being, and nor is a fetus.

Yes, a baby can survive on its own after birth. We're not talking about the ability to go down to the store and pick up some ciggies here. We're talking about being able to independently survive. It can breath on its own, it can take in food without being connected to the mother.

 

[hadit]

She states that if 500 million dollars is cut to PPH that there will be children born with no support. Meaning, no support from their birth right parents. In other words, its better to abort a child than to offer it up for adoption.

That organization is straight up evil

-Geaux

Why is that evil? Many kids who go through the adoption system don't come out of it good.

Is it really our prerogative to decide a baby's life won't be worth living so it's okay to destroy the developing body in violent ways?

Well we get to decide if the sperm doesn't go in or not, right? Is it really our prerogative or should we make sure we're banging day in day out not to waste any of that sperm?

At what point do you stop?

Some people say that a baby isn't a baby until it's able to survive on its own, ie, once it's been born.
Others say when it shows signs of being a human in the womb, what, 3-4 months. I think that abortions shouldn't be carried out after this time unless absolutely necessary.
But others might go way back to the sperm.

The issue here is for me is that the planet is of limited size. There are seven billion people and it's pushing this planet to its limits now, and there seems to be an increase. So, either there is control over the population or there will be war which is much more violent, don't you think? If food scarcity becomes more of a problem, if fighting over resources becomes more of a problem, then yes, we need to control humanity.

Do you stop to think about the life of the cow you're eating? It's life too? Life that is thrown away without even a second's thought by most people.

1. We're talking about human life, not bovine.
2. Sperm is not a human being.
3. A baby cannot survive on its own after birth. In fact, not until several years later. Thus, "viability" as a measure for abortion is a crock.

No, we're talking about LIFE, not just human life.

Sperm isn't a human being, and nor is a fetus.

Yes, a baby can survive on its own after birth. We're not talking about the ability to go down to the store and pick up some ciggies here. We're talking about being able to independently survive. It can breath on its own, it can take in food without being connected to the mother.

Using that standard, Christopher Reeve ceased to be a human being when his head hit that rock. As I said, "viability" as a measure for abortion is a crock.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why is that evil? Many kids who go through the adoption system don't come out of it good.

Is it really our prerogative to decide a baby's life won't be worth living so it's okay to destroy the developing body in violent ways?

Well we get to decide if the sperm doesn't go in or not, right? Is it really our prerogative or should we make sure we're banging day in day out not to waste any of that sperm?

At what point do you stop?

Some people say that a baby isn't a baby until it's able to survive on its own, ie, once it's been born.
Others say when it shows signs of being a human in the womb, what, 3-4 months. I think that abortions shouldn't be carried out after this time unless absolutely necessary.
But others might go way back to the sperm.

The issue here is for me is that the planet is of limited size. There are seven billion people and it's pushing this planet to its limits now, and there seems to be an increase. So, either there is control over the population or there will be war which is much more violent, don't you think? If food scarcity becomes more of a problem, if fighting over resources becomes more of a problem, then yes, we need to control humanity.

Do you stop to think about the life of the cow you're eating? It's life too? Life that is thrown away without even a second's thought by most people.

1. We're talking about human life, not bovine.
2. Sperm is not a human being.
3. A baby cannot survive on its own after birth. In fact, not until several years later. Thus, "viability" as a measure for abortion is a crock.

No, we're talking about LIFE, not just human life.

Sperm isn't a human being, and nor is a fetus.

Yes, a baby can survive on its own after birth. We're not talking about the ability to go down to the store and pick up some ciggies here. We're talking about being able to independently survive. It can breath on its own, it can take in food without being connected to the mother.

Using that standard, Christopher Reeve ceased to be a human being when his head hit that rock. As I said, "viability" as a measure for abortion is a crock.

It's actually just making a line between different things. You can choose whatever line you like.

But it also doesn't change the fact that there are 7 billion people on the Earth and over population is causing strains on the Earth that will lead to war, where people will die horribly.

 

[hadit]

Is it really our prerogative to decide a baby's life won't be worth living so it's okay to destroy the developing body in violent ways?

Well we get to decide if the sperm doesn't go in or not, right? Is it really our prerogative or should we make sure we're banging day in day out not to waste any of that sperm?

At what point do you stop?

Some people say that a baby isn't a baby until it's able to survive on its own, ie, once it's been born.
Others say when it shows signs of being a human in the womb, what, 3-4 months. I think that abortions shouldn't be carried out after this time unless absolutely necessary.
But others might go way back to the sperm.

The issue here is for me is that the planet is of limited size. There are seven billion people and it's pushing this planet to its limits now, and there seems to be an increase. So, either there is control over the population or there will be war which is much more violent, don't you think? If food scarcity becomes more of a problem, if fighting over resources becomes more of a problem, then yes, we need to control humanity.

Do you stop to think about the life of the cow you're eating? It's life too? Life that is thrown away without even a second's thought by most people.

1. We're talking about human life, not bovine.
2. Sperm is not a human being.
3. A baby cannot survive on its own after birth. In fact, not until several years later. Thus, "viability" as a measure for abortion is a crock.

No, we're talking about LIFE, not just human life.

Sperm isn't a human being, and nor is a fetus.

Yes, a baby can survive on its own after birth. We're not talking about the ability to go down to the store and pick up some ciggies here. We're talking about being able to independently survive. It can breath on its own, it can take in food without being connected to the mother.

Using that standard, Christopher Reeve ceased to be a human being when his head hit that rock. As I said, "viability" as a measure for abortion is a crock.

It's actually just making a line between different things. You can choose whatever line you like.

But it also doesn't change the fact that there are 7 billion people on the Earth and over population is causing strains on the Earth that will lead to war, where people will die horribly.

Is the answer then to destroy babies before they can be born? A world wide Chinese on baby policy?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well we get to decide if the sperm doesn't go in or not, right? Is it really our prerogative or should we make sure we're banging day in day out not to waste any of that sperm?

At what point do you stop?

Some people say that a baby isn't a baby until it's able to survive on its own, ie, once it's been born.
Others say when it shows signs of being a human in the womb, what, 3-4 months. I think that abortions shouldn't be carried out after this time unless absolutely necessary.
But others might go way back to the sperm.

The issue here is for me is that the planet is of limited size. There are seven billion people and it's pushing this planet to its limits now, and there seems to be an increase. So, either there is control over the population or there will be war which is much more violent, don't you think? If food scarcity becomes more of a problem, if fighting over resources becomes more of a problem, then yes, we need to control humanity.

Do you stop to think about the life of the cow you're eating? It's life too? Life that is thrown away without even a second's thought by most people.

1. We're talking about human life, not bovine.
2. Sperm is not a human being.
3. A baby cannot survive on its own after birth. In fact, not until several years later. Thus, "viability" as a measure for abortion is a crock.

No, we're talking about LIFE, not just human life.

Sperm isn't a human being, and nor is a fetus.

Yes, a baby can survive on its own after birth. We're not talking about the ability to go down to the store and pick up some ciggies here. We're talking about being able to independently survive. It can breath on its own, it can take in food without being connected to the mother.

Using that standard, Christopher Reeve ceased to be a human being when his head hit that rock. As I said, "viability" as a measure for abortion is a crock.

It's actually just making a line between different things. You can choose whatever line you like.

But it also doesn't change the fact that there are 7 billion people on the Earth and over population is causing strains on the Earth that will lead to war, where people will die horribly.

Is the answer then to destroy babies before they can be born? A world wide Chinese on baby policy?

The issue is one of control. When there are too many deer, then they send hunters out to cull the deer. When there are too many humans....

Do you know why religions like Christianity have a policy of no suicide and no abortion? Has it ever occurred to you why religions would go out of their way to stop this happening?

It's pretty simple really. Lots of kids used to die. You even had Kings who ended up with not enough children to produce an heir. Whole families would die out from the plague, kids would die of scarlet fever, or the flu, or chicken pox, or whatever was coming through. For humanity to keep the same population, it was often necessary to have lots of children.

But in the modern world people don't care so much.

My father, before he got into Genealogy told me that I had to carry on the family name. Then he realized that, hell, there are loads of people with my name, a lot connected to this side of the family, so what difference does it make any more? But the point here is that the name used to mean something, passing something down. In the modern world, away from religion, people simply don't see the need for this any more.

Humanity will survive if we abort babies. It will survive easily. In fact China was aborting babies left, right and center, and yet the population was growing. It just got rid of the one child policy because the number of young people is lowering, but the problem is people are living much longer in China now.

But still. Religion had its reasons, and those reasons are no longer valid. Clinging to religious stuff that made sense during the plague of 1665 doesn't make sense in a world where the average life expectancy is 72, where medical care is great and where those same people who are "pro-life" aren't pro-life, are trying to take medical care away from the poor, send the poor to die in Iraq or Afghanistan, execute people, eat meat, promote guns, they couldn't give the slightest fuck about life, they play the religious game, they use religion to control people and it just so happens that abortion is convenient for them. They say they're "pro-life" without realizing how much of a contradiction that statement is in their life.

I think that if we're going to put people into this world, we should give them a chance. If we're not going to do that, then what's the point of bringing them into misery?

 

[MindWars]

She states that if 500 million dollars is cut to PPH that there will be children born with no support. Meaning, no support from their birth right parents. In other words, its better to abort a child than to offer it up for adoption.

That organization is straight up evil

-Geaux

That's cause they have Elmo for their leader

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

If you want to create threads on that list of topics, which are totally unrelated to the OP, I will opine.

I am not going to apologize for believing life is the right choice.

How many babies have you had aborted?

So, you're claiming to be pro-life then? Like, real pro-life? Life is important right? Very important.

Okay then. If life is so important then here's the things you don't do.

You don't eat meat or wear leather, because a life has been lost in order for you to eat meat or wear leather.

You don't support executions, because that's clearly taking away a life.

You don't support wars except in self defense, because that would be taking away lives.

You don't support the prevalence of guns in society because the US has the highest murder rate in the western world and most of those murders are with guns.

Okay then, nice to see where you stand on these issues.

Have I aborted any fetus? No, my other half's mother went to the hospital to get an abortion. The machine failed and months later my other half was born.

Wow, this was stupid.

Puhleeze just stick on topic.

So, the OP isn't about abortions? I was talking about the right to life and what it means. The OP said "In other words, its better to abort a child than to offer it up for adoption. "

So, you'd have thunk that talking about abortions would be sticking to the topic. But oh no, not for you... what would it take for you to see a post as sticking to the topic?

This is your idea of talking about abortions:

"You don't eat meat or wear leather, because a life has been lost in order for you to eat meat or wear leather.

You don't support executions, because that's clearly taking away a life.

You don't support wars except in self defense, because that would be taking away lives.

You don't support the prevalence of guns in society because the US has the highest murder rate in the western world and most of those murders are with guns."


You went to public school right?

I'm sorry you don't get the point.

Life, life is the point.

People say that there is a right to life. The person I was speaking to said "life is the right choice".

Okay, so all these pro-lifers, how much do they care about life? How much are they willing to do to protect life?

Are they anti-executions? You can't be pro-life and pro-executions, it's contradictory.
Are they anti-leather? You can't wear leather and be pro-life, leather comes from dead animals.
Are they vegetarian? You can't be pro-life and eat animals.

Do you get this point or not?

A post ago you said:

"So, you'd have thunk that talking about abortions would be sticking to the topic. "

And a post later it changes to:
"Life, life is the point."

And an Easter basket of topics.


That shopping list of topics is out off bounds - start a new thread or threads

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, you're claiming to be pro-life then? Like, real pro-life? Life is important right? Very important.

Okay then. If life is so important then here's the things you don't do.

You don't eat meat or wear leather, because a life has been lost in order for you to eat meat or wear leather.

You don't support executions, because that's clearly taking away a life.

You don't support wars except in self defense, because that would be taking away lives.

You don't support the prevalence of guns in society because the US has the highest murder rate in the western world and most of those murders are with guns.

Okay then, nice to see where you stand on these issues.

Have I aborted any fetus? No, my other half's mother went to the hospital to get an abortion. The machine failed and months later my other half was born.

Wow, this was stupid.

Puhleeze just stick on topic.

So, the OP isn't about abortions? I was talking about the right to life and what it means. The OP said "In other words, its better to abort a child than to offer it up for adoption. "

So, you'd have thunk that talking about abortions would be sticking to the topic. But oh no, not for you... what would it take for you to see a post as sticking to the topic?

This is your idea of talking about abortions:

"You don't eat meat or wear leather, because a life has been lost in order for you to eat meat or wear leather.

You don't support executions, because that's clearly taking away a life.

You don't support wars except in self defense, because that would be taking away lives.

You don't support the prevalence of guns in society because the US has the highest murder rate in the western world and most of those murders are with guns."


You went to public school right?

I'm sorry you don't get the point.

Life, life is the point.

People say that there is a right to life. The person I was speaking to said "life is the right choice".

Okay, so all these pro-lifers, how much do they care about life? How much are they willing to do to protect life?

Are they anti-executions? You can't be pro-life and pro-executions, it's contradictory.
Are they anti-leather? You can't wear leather and be pro-life, leather comes from dead animals.
Are they vegetarian? You can't be pro-life and eat animals.

Do you get this point or not?

A post ago you said:

"So, you'd have thunk that talking about abortions would be sticking to the topic. "

And a post later it changes to:
"Life, life is the point."

And an Easter basket of topics.


That shopping list of topics is out off bounds - start a new thread or threads

So you don't think abortion and life are similar topics huh? Wow.....

I really have no clue what your problem is here, other than you seem to want to shut people up without having to make an argument. Typical.

 

[Roudy]

She states that if 500 million dollars is cut to PPH that there will be children born with no support. Meaning, no support from their birth right parents. In other words, its better to abort a child than to offer it up for adoption.

That organization is straight up evil

-Geaux

Never understood why they called it planned parenthood, when it's anything but.

 

[Chuz Life]

What many people choose to overlook--or perhaps they don't care--is that PP's main activity is screening women for ovarian cancer, and preventing early-stage developments of this malignant disease from spreading. Plus, they provide health care to women that otherwise can't afford such services.

In this sense, PP is very much pro-life. They help those who are already born and breathing. Take away PP's services and a lot more women will die than fetuses, as a result of undetected cancer. If you want women to choose birth over abortion, then promote access to affordable contraception, and offer better services to help mothers who would otherwise have to give newborns up for adoption.

That being said, it is possible to have a moral stance aganst abortion and still support an organization that provides them, if the other benefits that organization produces is also aligned with one's moral beliefs, and those benefits outweigh the undesired actions.

If you have actually given this thought, and still can't come to terms with the fact that PP perform abortions (safely and legally, btw), then fine. You have formed an opinion based on facts and have found that you can't make moral compromises, but had to choose one over the other.

Consider, however that OB-GYN clinics across the country perform abortions. Most of them do so quietly. Some employ doctors who volunteer at PP, while other doctors in the same association will have nothing to do with it, but silently accept their colleagues' decisions.

However, the fact that extreme, uncompromizing PP critics refuse to see this as an organization that promotes health for women first and foremost, can only be interpreted as a misogynist obsession with controlling women. In this sense, they are closer to the Taliban's, and other political extremist groups' values than they like to think.

I agree... Planned Parenthood is very "pro-life" in all the many ways they provide care for women... that don't include the Killing of children for profit and the selling of the slaughtered children's body parts.

Take those things out and they are actually almost as "pro-life" as they used to be back in 1952 when they called abortion what it is.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

Wow, this was stupid.

Puhleeze just stick on topic.

So, the OP isn't about abortions? I was talking about the right to life and what it means. The OP said "In other words, its better to abort a child than to offer it up for adoption. "

So, you'd have thunk that talking about abortions would be sticking to the topic. But oh no, not for you... what would it take for you to see a post as sticking to the topic?

This is your idea of talking about abortions:

"You don't eat meat or wear leather, because a life has been lost in order for you to eat meat or wear leather.

You don't support executions, because that's clearly taking away a life.

You don't support wars except in self defense, because that would be taking away lives.

You don't support the prevalence of guns in society because the US has the highest murder rate in the western world and most of those murders are with guns."


You went to public school right?

I'm sorry you don't get the point.

Life, life is the point.

People say that there is a right to life. The person I was speaking to said "life is the right choice".

Okay, so all these pro-lifers, how much do they care about life? How much are they willing to do to protect life?

Are they anti-executions? You can't be pro-life and pro-executions, it's contradictory.
Are they anti-leather? You can't wear leather and be pro-life, leather comes from dead animals.
Are they vegetarian? You can't be pro-life and eat animals.

Do you get this point or not?

A post ago you said:

"So, you'd have thunk that talking about abortions would be sticking to the topic. "

And a post later it changes to:
"Life, life is the point."

And an Easter basket of topics.


That shopping list of topics is out off bounds - start a new thread or threads

So you don't think abortion and life are similar topics huh? Wow.....

I really have no clue what your problem is here, other than you seem to want to shut people up without having to make an argument. Typical.

I never tried to shut you up bro. Just stay on topic.

 

[hadit]

1. We're talking about human life, not bovine.
2. Sperm is not a human being.
3. A baby cannot survive on its own after birth. In fact, not until several years later. Thus, "viability" as a measure for abortion is a crock.

No, we're talking about LIFE, not just human life.

Sperm isn't a human being, and nor is a fetus.

Yes, a baby can survive on its own after birth. We're not talking about the ability to go down to the store and pick up some ciggies here. We're talking about being able to independently survive. It can breath on its own, it can take in food without being connected to the mother.

Using that standard, Christopher Reeve ceased to be a human being when his head hit that rock. As I said, "viability" as a measure for abortion is a crock.

It's actually just making a line between different things. You can choose whatever line you like.

But it also doesn't change the fact that there are 7 billion people on the Earth and over population is causing strains on the Earth that will lead to war, where people will die horribly.

Is the answer then to destroy babies before they can be born? A world wide Chinese on baby policy?

The issue is one of control. When there are too many deer, then they send hunters out to cull the deer. When there are too many humans....

Do you know why religions like Christianity have a policy of no suicide and no abortion? Has it ever occurred to you why religions would go out of their way to stop this happening?

It's pretty simple really. Lots of kids used to die. You even had Kings who ended up with not enough children to produce an heir. Whole families would die out from the plague, kids would die of scarlet fever, or the flu, or chicken pox, or whatever was coming through. For humanity to keep the same population, it was often necessary to have lots of children.

But in the modern world people don't care so much.

My father, before he got into Genealogy told me that I had to carry on the family name. Then he realized that, hell, there are loads of people with my name, a lot connected to this side of the family, so what difference does it make any more? But the point here is that the name used to mean something, passing something down. In the modern world, away from religion, people simply don't see the need for this any more.

Humanity will survive if we abort babies. It will survive easily. In fact China was aborting babies left, right and center, and yet the population was growing. It just got rid of the one child policy because the number of young people is lowering, but the problem is people are living much longer in China now.

But still. Religion had its reasons, and those reasons are no longer valid. Clinging to religious stuff that made sense during the plague of 1665 doesn't make sense in a world where the average life expectancy is 72, where medical care is great and where those same people who are "pro-life" aren't pro-life, are trying to take medical care away from the poor, send the poor to die in Iraq or Afghanistan, execute people, eat meat, promote guns, they couldn't give the slightest fuck about life, they play the religious game, they use religion to control people and it just so happens that abortion is convenient for them. They say they're "pro-life" without realizing how much of a contradiction that statement is in their life.

I think that if we're going to put people into this world, we should give them a chance. If we're not going to do that, then what's the point of bringing them into misery?

And the answer, obviously, is to play God and determine whose life is worth living and destroy those who don't make the cut.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

She states that if 500 million dollars is cut to PPH that there will be children born with no support. Meaning, no support from their birth right parents. In other words, its better to abort a child than to offer it up for adoption.

That organization is straight up evil

-Geaux

Why is that evil? Many kids who go through the adoption system don't come out of it good.

So just kill them instead?

Are you listening to yourself?

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, the OP isn't about abortions? I was talking about the right to life and what it means. The OP said "In other words, its better to abort a child than to offer it up for adoption. "

So, you'd have thunk that talking about abortions would be sticking to the topic. But oh no, not for you... what would it take for you to see a post as sticking to the topic?

This is your idea of talking about abortions:

"You don't eat meat or wear leather, because a life has been lost in order for you to eat meat or wear leather.

You don't support executions, because that's clearly taking away a life.

You don't support wars except in self defense, because that would be taking away lives.

You don't support the prevalence of guns in society because the US has the highest murder rate in the western world and most of those murders are with guns."


You went to public school right?

I'm sorry you don't get the point.

Life, life is the point.

People say that there is a right to life. The person I was speaking to said "life is the right choice".

Okay, so all these pro-lifers, how much do they care about life? How much are they willing to do to protect life?

Are they anti-executions? You can't be pro-life and pro-executions, it's contradictory.
Are they anti-leather? You can't wear leather and be pro-life, leather comes from dead animals.
Are they vegetarian? You can't be pro-life and eat animals.

Do you get this point or not?

A post ago you said:

"So, you'd have thunk that talking about abortions would be sticking to the topic. "

And a post later it changes to:
"Life, life is the point."

And an Easter basket of topics.


That shopping list of topics is out off bounds - start a new thread or threads

So you don't think abortion and life are similar topics huh? Wow.....

I really have no clue what your problem is here, other than you seem to want to shut people up without having to make an argument. Typical.

I never tried to shut you up bro. Just stay on topic.

But I was on topic. You on the other hand came at me with an attack which had nothing to do with the topic at all.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, we're talking about LIFE, not just human life.

Sperm isn't a human being, and nor is a fetus.

Yes, a baby can survive on its own after birth. We're not talking about the ability to go down to the store and pick up some ciggies here. We're talking about being able to independently survive. It can breath on its own, it can take in food without being connected to the mother.

Using that standard, Christopher Reeve ceased to be a human being when his head hit that rock. As I said, "viability" as a measure for abortion is a crock.

It's actually just making a line between different things. You can choose whatever line you like.

But it also doesn't change the fact that there are 7 billion people on the Earth and over population is causing strains on the Earth that will lead to war, where people will die horribly.

Is the answer then to destroy babies before they can be born? A world wide Chinese on baby policy?

The issue is one of control. When there are too many deer, then they send hunters out to cull the deer. When there are too many humans....

Do you know why religions like Christianity have a policy of no suicide and no abortion? Has it ever occurred to you why religions would go out of their way to stop this happening?

It's pretty simple really. Lots of kids used to die. You even had Kings who ended up with not enough children to produce an heir. Whole families would die out from the plague, kids would die of scarlet fever, or the flu, or chicken pox, or whatever was coming through. For humanity to keep the same population, it was often necessary to have lots of children.

But in the modern world people don't care so much.

My father, before he got into Genealogy told me that I had to carry on the family name. Then he realized that, hell, there are loads of people with my name, a lot connected to this side of the family, so what difference does it make any more? But the point here is that the name used to mean something, passing something down. In the modern world, away from religion, people simply don't see the need for this any more.

Humanity will survive if we abort babies. It will survive easily. In fact China was aborting babies left, right and center, and yet the population was growing. It just got rid of the one child policy because the number of young people is lowering, but the problem is people are living much longer in China now.

But still. Religion had its reasons, and those reasons are no longer valid. Clinging to religious stuff that made sense during the plague of 1665 doesn't make sense in a world where the average life expectancy is 72, where medical care is great and where those same people who are "pro-life" aren't pro-life, are trying to take medical care away from the poor, send the poor to die in Iraq or Afghanistan, execute people, eat meat, promote guns, they couldn't give the slightest fuck about life, they play the religious game, they use religion to control people and it just so happens that abortion is convenient for them. They say they're "pro-life" without realizing how much of a contradiction that statement is in their life.

I think that if we're going to put people into this world, we should give them a chance. If we're not going to do that, then what's the point of bringing them into misery?

And the answer, obviously, is to play God and determine whose life is worth living and destroy those who don't make the cut.

Well, there are lots of things to say to that.

1) is that we play God anyway. Some kids are born into ghettos and will struggle their whole life, while others are born with silver spoons.

2) is that overpopulation could end up in war in which case we end up playing God by shooting, bombing, killing people.

3) What is life worth? Hey, we fucking kill animals on a massive scale on a daily basis and no one batters an eye lid. It makes the holocaust look like a day at the park.

4) Parents make that choice anyway, if they use a condom, don't have sex, etc, then they're deciding whether something is going to happen or not. Should we force people to have sex just so the sperm gets a chance?

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

This is your idea of talking about abortions:

"You don't eat meat or wear leather, because a life has been lost in order for you to eat meat or wear leather.

You don't support executions, because that's clearly taking away a life.

You don't support wars except in self defense, because that would be taking away lives.

You don't support the prevalence of guns in society because the US has the highest murder rate in the western world and most of those murders are with guns."


You went to public school right?

I'm sorry you don't get the point.

Life, life is the point.

People say that there is a right to life. The person I was speaking to said "life is the right choice".

Okay, so all these pro-lifers, how much do they care about life? How much are they willing to do to protect life?

Are they anti-executions? You can't be pro-life and pro-executions, it's contradictory.
Are they anti-leather? You can't wear leather and be pro-life, leather comes from dead animals.
Are they vegetarian? You can't be pro-life and eat animals.

Do you get this point or not?

A post ago you said:

"So, you'd have thunk that talking about abortions would be sticking to the topic. "

And a post later it changes to:
"Life, life is the point."

And an Easter basket of topics.


That shopping list of topics is out off bounds - start a new thread or threads

So you don't think abortion and life are similar topics huh? Wow.....

I really have no clue what your problem is here, other than you seem to want to shut people up without having to make an argument. Typical.

I never tried to shut you up bro. Just stay on topic.

But I was on topic. You on the other hand came at me with an attack which had nothing to do with the topic at all.

What was the "attack"?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm sorry you don't get the point.

Life, life is the point.

People say that there is a right to life. The person I was speaking to said "life is the right choice".

Okay, so all these pro-lifers, how much do they care about life? How much are they willing to do to protect life?

Are they anti-executions? You can't be pro-life and pro-executions, it's contradictory.
Are they anti-leather? You can't wear leather and be pro-life, leather comes from dead animals.
Are they vegetarian? You can't be pro-life and eat animals.

Do you get this point or not?

A post ago you said:

"So, you'd have thunk that talking about abortions would be sticking to the topic. "

And a post later it changes to:
"Life, life is the point."

And an Easter basket of topics.


That shopping list of topics is out off bounds - start a new thread or threads

So you don't think abortion and life are similar topics huh? Wow.....

I really have no clue what your problem is here, other than you seem to want to shut people up without having to make an argument. Typical.

I never tried to shut you up bro. Just stay on topic.

But I was on topic. You on the other hand came at me with an attack which had nothing to do with the topic at all.

What was the "attack"?

That I wasn't following the OP.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

A post ago you said:

"So, you'd have thunk that talking about abortions would be sticking to the topic. "

And a post later it changes to:
"Life, life is the point."

And an Easter basket of topics.


That shopping list of topics is out off bounds - start a new thread or threads

So you don't think abortion and life are similar topics huh? Wow.....

I really have no clue what your problem is here, other than you seem to want to shut people up without having to make an argument. Typical.

I never tried to shut you up bro. Just stay on topic.

But I was on topic. You on the other hand came at me with an attack which had nothing to do with the topic at all.

What was the "attack"?

That I wasn't following the OP.

If that was an "attack", would it make me a bad person to think you are a snowflake?

 

[frigidweirdo]

So you don't think abortion and life are similar topics huh? Wow.....

I really have no clue what your problem is here, other than you seem to want to shut people up without having to make an argument. Typical.

I never tried to shut you up bro. Just stay on topic.

But I was on topic. You on the other hand came at me with an attack which had nothing to do with the topic at all.

What was the "attack"?

That I wasn't following the OP.

If that was an "attack", would it make me a bad person to think you are a snowflake?

Everyone hiding behind the internet and acting like this, it's ridiculous. I couldn't give a shit what you think of me, but if I think you're going on the ignore list, because you insult, then I will put you there.

 

[MaryL]

She states that if 500 million dollars is cut to PPH that there will be children born with no support. Meaning, no support from their birth right parents. In other words, its better to abort a child than to offer it up for adoption.

That organization is straight up evil

-Geaux

No, your being over dramatic. I support the death penalty as well as abortion. I know how this works. If Hitler or Dahmer or Einstein had been aborted...We might have been better off. Now if you are a tad bit religious, maybe abortion is part of gods plan, too. I have seen the cute little plaques in children's hospital in Aurora By deceased children GOD let slip through his all powerful mercy.