You Have To Wonder What The Anti Abortion Crowd Is Thinking

[Cammmpbell]

It's the other way around. The pro-abortion side uses the government to fund the murder of children and exploitation of women.

Here is an idea...you don't ask for an abortion, and they won't give you one. No money spent. Verses, I want one, but am not allowed to recieve one. Good thing I'm wealthy enough to go out of country to get one done. Only the poor will be barred from getting an abortion how much sense does that make.

Not much since up to modern times evolution dictated only the survival of the strongest. That's what I call reverse order.

 

[Neser Boha]

Is there really anything that hasn't been said about this already? I don't think so.

Let's focus on the children that have already been born and are living in terrible conditions - the abused, the unloved, the hungry, the poor, etc.

If we focused on that, we'd be so much better off as the whole of humanity. Let's take care of all the living first and then concern ourselves with the not-yet-born.

I'm saying this as a brand new mother who just watched yet another WWII docummentary with pictures of dead children in it ... Of course, I could have just turned on the news to watch pictures of starving children in Africa instead ...

How about we focus on those children instead??? For f's sake already.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In the past century the earth's human population has nearly quadrupled, growing from 1.7 billion in 1900 to about 7 billion today. By 2050, it is estimated that the global population will reach 10 billion. In 1968, a young biologist named Paul Ehrlich wrote a best-selling book called The Population Bomb, which sparked an ongoing debate about the dangers of overpopulation. He argued that population growth was destroying the ecological systems necessary to sustain life.

Clarabelle, I picked you out early on as a wacko....but now you have graduated to uninformed wacko.

1. "But in the worldview presented in an early environmentalist manifesto co-authored by Stanford University’s Paul and Anne Ehrlich and John P. Holdren—who is now director of Obama’s Office of Science and Technology Policy--sluggish growth would not be seen as the “troubling pattern” the Post perceives it to be. In fact, it might be viewed as a positive…Holdren (who advises Obama on climate change and health care) expressed in his 1973 book “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.” That vision held that the world could be a better place if Americans worked, produced and earned less.

2. Holdren and his co-authors endorsed a vision presented by economist Kenneth Boulding, who called for America to turn away from a “cowboy economy” that exploited natural resources and stressed growth in the Gross National Product to a new “spaceman economy” that recognized growth had limits.

3. “One problem that must be faced squarely is the redistribution of wealth within and between nations,” they wrote. “Otherwise fixing the quantity of physical goods in use would ‘freeze’ the majority of human beings in a state of poverty.”
Obama Adviser’s Green Manifesto: Americans Will Be Better Off When They Work, Produce and Earn Less - HUMAN EVENTS

So, you're down with zero growth....including growth of the economy....
....how about the poisoning of his fellows humans?

4. John P. Holdren’s advocacy for a global planetary regime to enforce forced abortion, government `seizure of children born out of wedlock, and mandatory bodily implants designed to prevent pregnancy, Obama’s top advisor also called for,”Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods.” Holdren added that the sterilant must meet stiff requirements in that it must only affect humans and not livestock.

5. Holdren notes that the proposal to forcibly mass sterilize the public against their will “seems to horrify people” and yet it doesn’t seem to bother him too much, amidst the myriad of other totalitarian Dr. Strangelove style ideas that are put forward in the book as a way to carry out an aggressive agenda of population reduction.
» Obama Science Czar’s Plan To Sterilize Population Through Water Supply Already Happening Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

6. SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 24--A possibility that the Government might have to put sterility drugs in reservoirs and in food shipped to foreign countries to limit human multiplication was envisioned today by a leading crusader on the population problem.
A STERILITY DRUG IN FOOD IS HINTED - Biologist Stresses Need to Curb Population Growth - Article - NYTimes.com
Editorials, Columns, Op-Ed, Letters, Opinionator and More Opinion - The New York Times
Ehrlich 1969 : Wanted To http://spiderbites.nytimes.com/pay_1969/articles_1969_11_00000.htmlPoison Water And Food Supplies | Real Science


7. “Some biologists feel that compulsory family regulation will be necessary to retard population growth. It is a dismal prospect – except when viewed as an alternative to Armageddon.”
Of course – compulsion requires us to believe that the only alternative is obliteration. But we would need to be convinced first of all that the choice was that stark. How could that be achieved? Ehrlich demanded the establishment of some sort of commission
“. . . with a large budget for propaganda.”
Inside the Mind of Paul Ehrlich | hauntingthelibrary



Clara....bet you would have loved the ol' Soviet Union, eh?

I realize that you are crazy…not crazy in a ‘let’s paint the kitchen red’ kind of way, but in a ‘gas oven, toothpaste sandwich, I am God’ kind of way.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Is there really anything that hasn't been said about this already? I don't think so.

Let's focus on the children that have already been born and are living in terrible conditions - the abused, the unloved, the hungry, the poor, etc.

If we focused on that, we'd be so much better off as the whole of humanity. Let's take care of all the living first and then concern ourselves with the not-yet-born.

I'm saying this as a brand new mother who just watched yet another WWII docummentary with pictures of dead children in it ... Of course, I could have just turned on the news to watch pictures of starving children in Africa instead ...

How about we focus on those children instead??? For f's sake already.

A little eye opener...for some.

There are over 900,000,000 people on this planet who are starving to death or suffering from malnutrition, most of them children. Why the hell don't those "Religious Activists" who will lie, cheat or steal to force some poverty stricken woman to add another to the roles of the poor use their wealth and influence to feed those who are alive and hungry?

Most right wingers live in a world they've imagined which has nothing at all to do with reality. Start with the invisible man in the sky who is supposed to be "Doing His Will."

 

[koshergrl]

Cammmmmpbell is advocating genocide.

Yay.

 

[Cammmpbell]

"There are over 900,000,000 people on this planet who are starving to death or suffering from malnutrition, most of them children. Why the hell don't those "Religious Activists" who will lie, cheat or steal to force some poverty stricken woman to add another to the roles of the poor use their wealth and influence to feed those who are alive and hungry?

Most right wingers live in a world they've imagined which has nothing at all to do with reality. Start with the invisible man in the sky who is supposed to be "Doing His Will."




Cammmmmpbell is advocating genocide.

Yay.

You're either a careless reader or can't. What I'm advocating is that thumpers keep their noses out of the business of others and instead of paying to run pregnancy care centers which are nothing but propaganda centers to keep a pregnant woman from getting an abortion they use that money to feed some of the hungry and starving children already in the world. That's what I'd be an advocate for.

I'm sorry I ended that sentence with a preposition but it just seemed like the right thing to do.

 

[JoeB131]

In the past century the earth's human population has nearly quadrupled, growing from 1.7 billion in 1900 to about 7 billion today. By 2050, it is estimated that the global population will reach 10 billion. In 1968, a young biologist named Paul Ehrlich wrote a best-selling book called The Population Bomb, which sparked an ongoing debate about the dangers of overpopulation. He argued that population growth was destroying the ecological systems necessary to sustain life.

And almost all of his predictions turned out to be wrong.

But to the point, if overpopulation is really a concern to you, why stop at abortion? Why not advocate genocide? I mean, if you really think there are too many people, let's eliminate some of the people. Since most of them are nearly starving, it would be a mercy, really.

Next time there's a genocide in a place like Darfur or Rwanda, just be happy that we are helping to defuse that horrible "population bomb" you are on about. I mean, why not?

 

[koshergrl]

"There are over 900,000,000 people on this planet who are starving to death or suffering from malnutrition, most of them children. Why the hell don't those "Religious Activists" who will lie, cheat or steal to force some poverty stricken woman to add another to the roles of the poor use their wealth and influence to feed those who are alive and hungry?

Most right wingers live in a world they've imagined which has nothing at all to do with reality. Start with the invisible man in the sky who is supposed to be "Doing His Will."




Cammmmmpbell is advocating genocide.

Yay.

You're either a careless reader or can't. What I'm advocating is that thumpers keep their noses out of the business of others and instead of paying to run pregnancy care centers which are nothing but propaganda centers to keep a pregnant woman from getting an abortion they use that money to feed some of the hungry and starving children already in the world. That's what I'd be an advocate for.

I'm sorry I ended that sentence with a preposition but it just seemed like the right thing to do.

No, you're saying that because there are so many people in the world, killing babies is a good idea.

Further, you're pretending that abortion will lower starvation.

Typical baby killing propaganda that has no basis in truth.

 

[koshergrl]

In the past century the earth's human population has nearly quadrupled, growing from 1.7 billion in 1900 to about 7 billion today. By 2050, it is estimated that the global population will reach 10 billion. In 1968, a young biologist named Paul Ehrlich wrote a best-selling book called The Population Bomb, which sparked an ongoing debate about the dangers of overpopulation. He argued that population growth was destroying the ecological systems necessary to sustain life.

And almost all of his predictions turned out to be wrong.

But to the point, if overpopulation is really a concern to you, why stop at abortion? Why not advocate genocide? I mean, if you really think there are too many people, let's eliminate some of the people. Since most of them are nearly starving, it would be a mercy, really.

Next time there's a genocide in a place like Darfur or Rwanda, just be happy that we are helping to defuse that horrible "population bomb" you are on about. I mean, why not?

He is advocating genocide. He's just too chicken shit to come out and say it. I guarantee he's fine with wiping out the entire poor, black population in the US and furthermore, has absolutely no issue with what's going on elsewhere in the world. Only he will couch it in terms like "it's none of our business" and "it's none of your business" and "it's for the good of the rest of the population".

 

[Valerie]

can pro lifers say the same of pro choicer's? sadly the answer is "no". In a free country pro lifers want to dictate how others live their lives.

This is an unfair statement on many levels. For one, I happen to be a pro-life supporter (in so much as I think that it is killing a human being in the earliest stages of human development and I support women not getting abortions, especially for reasons other than rape, incest, or the life of the mother) who also feels that making all abortions illegal is not the right way to "win" the debate, so to speak. So therefore, I AM a pro-lifer who "respects" the rights of people to make a different choice.

That being said...the notion that the pro-life side is unfair because it doesn't allow pro-choicers to make a different choice than they would make is inappropriate in this particular debate.

I am against rape. I think it is wrong. I don't think it should be legal. I don't think anyone should ever be able to rape another person.

Am I a close-minded person because in a "free country" I should respect people who feel differently about rape?

Of course not, because in our society, we all agree that raping someone is wrong.

Well...in the abortion debate...pro-life supporters view an abortion as murder...so to them..your argument...that they can be against murder...but if you choose to murder then they should respect your choice...is ridiculous.

Now, obviously...you disagree with them that abortion is murder. And thats one reason this debate is so never-ending. But to state that they are close-minded because they won't let you kill your child is unfair because it, some could say close-mindedly, ignores the fact that they believe what you are doing is murder.

You would not let someone rape another human being, I hope, because you feel that it is wrong. Would your opinion change if you moved to a place where the culture allowed men to rape women at their will? I would hope not...although your fight against it would probably be very challenging since so many would disagree with you. It is similar for an ardent pro-lifer...they feel that you are murdering a human being...just because you disagree doesn't mean they suddenly think you're right.

I happen to be a pro-life supporter (in so much as I think that it is killing a human being in the earliest stages of human development and I support women not getting abortions, especially for reasons other than rape, incest, or the life of the mother) who also feels that making all abortions illegal is not the right way to "win" the debate, so to speak. So therefore, I AM a pro-lifer who "respects" the rights of people to make a different choice.



That means you are actually pro-choice.

 

[rdean]

In the past century the earth's human population has nearly quadrupled, growing from 1.7 billion in 1900 to about 7 billion today. By 2050, it is estimated that the global population will reach 10 billion. In 1968, a young biologist named Paul Ehrlich wrote a best-selling book called The Population Bomb, which sparked an ongoing debate about the dangers of overpopulation. He argued that population growth was destroying the ecological systems necessary to sustain life.

I know what they are thinking. They are thinking, "Let's get this kid born". Right after that, they lose interest.

 

[California Girl]

can pro lifers say the same of pro choicer's? sadly the answer is "no". In a free country pro lifers want to dictate how others live their lives.

This is an unfair statement on many levels. For one, I happen to be a pro-life supporter (in so much as I think that it is killing a human being in the earliest stages of human development and I support women not getting abortions, especially for reasons other than rape, incest, or the life of the mother) who also feels that making all abortions illegal is not the right way to "win" the debate, so to speak. So therefore, I AM a pro-lifer who "respects" the rights of people to make a different choice.

That being said...the notion that the pro-life side is unfair because it doesn't allow pro-choicers to make a different choice than they would make is inappropriate in this particular debate.

I am against rape. I think it is wrong. I don't think it should be legal. I don't think anyone should ever be able to rape another person.

Am I a close-minded person because in a "free country" I should respect people who feel differently about rape?

Of course not, because in our society, we all agree that raping someone is wrong.

Well...in the abortion debate...pro-life supporters view an abortion as murder...so to them..your argument...that they can be against murder...but if you choose to murder then they should respect your choice...is ridiculous.

Now, obviously...you disagree with them that abortion is murder. And thats one reason this debate is so never-ending. But to state that they are close-minded because they won't let you kill your child is unfair because it, some could say close-mindedly, ignores the fact that they believe what you are doing is murder.

You would not let someone rape another human being, I hope, because you feel that it is wrong. Would your opinion change if you moved to a place where the culture allowed men to rape women at their will? I would hope not...although your fight against it would probably be very challenging since so many would disagree with you. It is similar for an ardent pro-lifer...they feel that you are murdering a human being...just because you disagree doesn't mean they suddenly think you're right.

I happen to be a pro-life supporter (in so much as I think that it is killing a human being in the earliest stages of human development and I support women not getting abortions, especially for reasons other than rape, incest, or the life of the mother) who also feels that making all abortions illegal is not the right way to "win" the debate, so to speak. So therefore, I AM a pro-lifer who "respects" the rights of people to make a different choice.



That means you are actually pro-choice.

No, it doesn't. It means one has the intellect to recognize that no one has the right to inflict their personal views on others. If the left would grasp that simple concept, and the right would grasp that simple concept... we could move forward.

 

[California Girl]

In the past century the earth's human population has nearly quadrupled, growing from 1.7 billion in 1900 to about 7 billion today. By 2050, it is estimated that the global population will reach 10 billion. In 1968, a young biologist named Paul Ehrlich wrote a best-selling book called The Population Bomb, which sparked an ongoing debate about the dangers of overpopulation. He argued that population growth was destroying the ecological systems necessary to sustain life.

I know what they are thinking. They are thinking, "Let's get this kid born". Right after that, they lose interest.

You don't even know what you think... yet alone 'know' what 'they are thinking'. You fucking moron.

 

[daveman]

It's the other way around. The pro-abortion side uses the government to fund the murder of children and exploitation of women.

Since when is a wad of blood and tissue a child?

That's major bullshit. Where did you hear that FAUX NEWS??

Your brain is a wad of blood and tissue that doesn't benefit society. You should have it surgically removed.


Say, did you ever notice that all the people who support abortion have already been born?

 

[Valerie]

This is an unfair statement on many levels. For one, I happen to be a pro-life supporter (in so much as I think that it is killing a human being in the earliest stages of human development and I support women not getting abortions, especially for reasons other than rape, incest, or the life of the mother) who also feels that making all abortions illegal is not the right way to "win" the debate, so to speak. So therefore, I AM a pro-lifer who "respects" the rights of people to make a different choice.

That being said...the notion that the pro-life side is unfair because it doesn't allow pro-choicers to make a different choice than they would make is inappropriate in this particular debate.

I am against rape. I think it is wrong. I don't think it should be legal. I don't think anyone should ever be able to rape another person.

Am I a close-minded person because in a "free country" I should respect people who feel differently about rape?

Of course not, because in our society, we all agree that raping someone is wrong.

Well...in the abortion debate...pro-life supporters view an abortion as murder...so to them..your argument...that they can be against murder...but if you choose to murder then they should respect your choice...is ridiculous.

Now, obviously...you disagree with them that abortion is murder. And thats one reason this debate is so never-ending. But to state that they are close-minded because they won't let you kill your child is unfair because it, some could say close-mindedly, ignores the fact that they believe what you are doing is murder.

You would not let someone rape another human being, I hope, because you feel that it is wrong. Would your opinion change if you moved to a place where the culture allowed men to rape women at their will? I would hope not...although your fight against it would probably be very challenging since so many would disagree with you. It is similar for an ardent pro-lifer...they feel that you are murdering a human being...just because you disagree doesn't mean they suddenly think you're right.

I happen to be a pro-life supporter (in so much as I think that it is killing a human being in the earliest stages of human development and I support women not getting abortions, especially for reasons other than rape, incest, or the life of the mother) who also feels that making all abortions illegal is not the right way to "win" the debate, so to speak. So therefore, I AM a pro-lifer who "respects" the rights of people to make a different choice.



That means you are actually pro-choice.

No, it doesn't. It means one has the intellect to recognize that no one has the right to inflict their personal views on others. If the left would grasp that simple concept, and the right would grasp that simple concept... we could move forward.

Uh, yes it does.


The rest of what you said sounds like blah blah blah...same difference...

 

[daveman]

Cammmmmpbell is advocating genocide.

Yay.

The left really have only two responses to any given situation:

1. Raise taxes.

2. Kill lots and lots of people.

 

[California Girl]

I happen to be a pro-life supporter (in so much as I think that it is killing a human being in the earliest stages of human development and I support women not getting abortions, especially for reasons other than rape, incest, or the life of the mother) who also feels that making all abortions illegal is not the right way to "win" the debate, so to speak. So therefore, I AM a pro-lifer who "respects" the rights of people to make a different choice.



That means you are actually pro-choice.

No, it doesn't. It means one has the intellect to recognize that no one has the right to inflict their personal views on others. If the left would grasp that simple concept, and the right would grasp that simple concept... we could move forward.

Uh, yes it does.


The rest of what you said sounds like blah blah blah...same difference...

No, it really doesn't. It may be too complex for you to understand but that doesn't make it so. The left, and the right, try to inflict their own morals on others. That's not 'blah', it may be over your intellectual pay grade but that does not make it any less true.

 

[California Girl]

Cammmmmpbell is advocating genocide.

Yay.

The left really have only two responses to any given situation:

1. Raise taxes.

2. Kill lots and lots of people.

You left out...

3. Blame Republicans.

 

[daveman]

Cammmmmpbell is advocating genocide.

Yay.

The left really have only two responses to any given situation:

1. Raise taxes.

2. Kill lots and lots of people.

You left out...

3. Blame Republicans.

*tips hat*

 

[Valerie]

No, it doesn't. It means one has the intellect to recognize that no one has the right to inflict their personal views on others. If the left would grasp that simple concept, and the right would grasp that simple concept... we could move forward.

Uh, yes it does.


The rest of what you said sounds like blah blah blah...same difference...

No, it really doesn't. It may be too complex for you to understand but that doesn't make it so. The left, and the right, try to inflict their own morals on others. That's not 'blah', it may be over your intellectual pay grade but that does not make it any less true.

Not wanting to make it illegal and respecting the choice of others IS the pro-choice position. Now, fuck off with your intellectual pay grade bullshit.