Abortion is costing America !!

[NYcarbineer]

Actually the modern approach to abortion is exactly what Margaret Sanger and Adolph Hitler envisioned. A brave new world where only the fittest are allowed to live. Modern technology can determine everything from eye color to the future size and weight of the biomass. In the brave new progressive world there will be no need for a "special olympics" and future children will be judged by their looks.

That would be almost a not-crazy argument if the government was determining who was having abortions.

But since the choice is the woman with the unwanted visitor, it just goes into crazy land...

I'm telling you what Sanger and Hitler dreamed. A world where only the fittest (and prettiest) would be allowed to live. Of course it isn't mandated but the result is the same. You could say that confiscated money that pays for the technology that examines the biomass and advises mothers about the option to terminate comes pretty close to the ultimate dream of Eugenics which was supported by most liberal American politicians and the Nazi regime in the 30's.

FDR supported only allowing the fittest to live? Do you have a link to that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The lower birthrate in this country is the result of white middle class working class American couples choosing to have fewer children, mostly for economic reasons.

 

[FJO]

The majority of women who have abortions are mothers. Being a mother doesn't equal being pro-life.

It takes a non-caring, insensitive, selfish and self-absorbed, comfort-loving and lazy ***** to end the life in her womb. It certainly does NOT a mother.

Does not she realize that the heart that beats in her womb might be another Hilary Clinton? Or Bill Clinton? Or Barack Obama? Or Paul Krugman? Or Chris Matthews? Or Maxine Waters? Or Al Sharpton? Or O.J. Simpson? Or another Obama, male or female?

Does not an oversexed abortion-seeking woman realize that she is about to deny the world of such human treasures as listed above, when she puts her heels in the stirrups? Does not she realize that she would not be in that situation if she had only kept those heels, knees and thighs just a bit more tightly closed before she got herself in to this immoral situation?

 

[auditor0007]

with the death of 50 million potential tax payers the government has lost hundreds of billions in tax revenues !! Physicians For Life - Abstinence, Abortion, Birth Control - Abortion Effect: U.S. Seeing Slowest Population Growth Since 1930

While I would not call it a justified argument, the fact is that an argument can be made that many of those 50 million would have ended up on welfare. If you are so concerned about it from a tax perspective, then why not just allow all the illegals to become citizens so they can start paying taxes? You see, when you say potential, there is potential for many different outcomes. Just saying.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Children are the main reason 47% of households pay no federal income tax.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Abortion is costing America !!

Don't have one.

 

[Mr Natural]

Looks like yidnar survived that liberal pregnancy with some severe brain damage.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Wow, this is quite possibly the dumbest pro-life argument I've ever heard. My mind is completely blown with the idiocy it just had to process.

The argument that abortions eliminate government's cheapest most reliable access to loyal workers and taxpayers is, in fact, what underpinned the leadership of the Reagan Revolution's affinity for religious nutters like Falwell, Robinson, et al.

Obviously, this essentially utilitarian view of government's rights over citizens never made it into the public domain in a big way; but it is the original (utilitarian) argument against abortion, and it is the pov that sealed GHW Bush's "conversion" in 1980.

 

[whitehall]

That would be almost a not-crazy argument if the government was determining who was having abortions.

But since the choice is the woman with the unwanted visitor, it just goes into crazy land...

I'm telling you what Sanger and Hitler dreamed. A world where only the fittest (and prettiest) would be allowed to live. Of course it isn't mandated but the result is the same. You could say that confiscated money that pays for the technology that examines the biomass and advises mothers about the option to terminate comes pretty close to the ultimate dream of Eugenics which was supported by most liberal American politicians and the Nazi regime in the 30's.

FDR supported only allowing the fittest to live? Do you have a link to that?

Do you really want to go down this road? Try Christopher Thorne's "Allies of a Kind". During the 30's, 38 states enacted forced sterilization for the "feeble minded". Subjects to do with breeding and race seemed to have a certain fascination for FDR. One time FDR felt in order to talk, jokingly, of dealing with Puerto Rico's seemingly excessive birth rate by employing in his own words "the methods which Hitler used effectively to make them sterile. It was FDR who ordered the incarceration of American Japanese citizens based on their skin color and facial features.

 

[varelse]

Wow, this is quite possibly the dumbest pro-life argument I've ever heard. My mind is completely blown with the idiocy it just had to process.

Arguing for any side of the abortion debate on the grounds that any given baby might have turned out to be rich, poor, good, evil, productive, lazy, or whatever particular adjective fits your own ignorant assumptions and prejudices is plain stupid at best.

Tax payers? Or welfare recipients? Or human lives that shouldn't be so cheaply used for your own ******* political purposes?

Human lives? I thought they were zygotes?

You people need to make up your mind. Either dehumanize them or don't.

The child in question might well be a zygote, or a blastocyst, or foetus, depending on how far along the pregnancy is at the time. What species do you* think you started out as, if you weren't a human zygote at one point?

*you in this instance refers to your physical body/form, as opposed to some philosophical concept of the mind or metaphysical conception of a soul or whatever

Please either cite where I ever claimed human children start put as something other than human, or put down the partisan script and use your brain. As it stands, you sounds like an idiot parroting canned responses to imagined objections you've been taught to expect.

If anyone uses the issue of abortion for political purposes, it is the liberals.

Aren't you doing likewise right now, with your little characterization? IMO, both sides have a large constituency of persons who seem to care more about the political value of the issue than about either the rights or the lives they claim are the issue.

Tax payers? Or welfare recipients? Or human lives that shouldn't be so cheaply used for your own ******* political purposes?

cheaply used !!! you and your political kind support the deaths of 50 million unborn children !!

"children"?

First they were "newborns"...then they were "infants"...then they were "babies"...now they are "children"....what's next "teenagers"?

child [tʃaɪld]n pl children1.a. a boy or girl between birth and puberty
b. (as modifier) child labour

2. a baby or infant
3. an unborn baby Related prefix paedo-
with child another term for pregnant

5. a human offspring; a son or daughter Related adj filial
6. a childish or immature person
7. a member of a family or tribe; descendant a child of Israel
8. a person or thing regarded as the product of an influence or environment a child of nature
9. Midland and Western English dialect a female infant[Old English cild; related to Gothic kilthei womb, Sanskrit jathara belly, jartu womb]
childless adj
childlessness n

Child - definition of Child by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

child

[chahyld] Show IPA
noun, plural chil·dren. 1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.

2. a son or daughter: All my children are married.

3. a baby or infant.

4. a human fetus.

5. a childish person: He's such a child about money.

Child | Define Child at Dictionary.com

Just sayin'...

Do you have anything more substantive to contribute to the discussion?

Tax payers? Or welfare recipients? Or human lives that shouldn't be so cheaply used for your own ******* political purposes?

But it is okay to murder those humans that cannot speak, yet?

I assume we're using murder in the ethical, rather than the legal, sense of the term?

First, let's lay out our starting points and definitions. Why is it not-okay for me to kill you but okay to kill, say, an ant or a cow?

My answer: because you have an intelligent capable of suffering and self-awareness, which gives you status as a moral agent. An ant does not. A cow has more awareness than an ant (the cow we know feels pain) but less than you, and therefore merits consideration and 'rights' (or whatever term you prefer) proportional to that awareness and intellect. Hence I don't care if you smash the ant, I object to wanton cruelty toward the cow and support humane mains of killing the cow if you are going to do (for example, for food or because is it sickly), and I accept you into the moral contract that declares it unlawful and ethically abhorrent(in addition to my own moral abhorrence) to walk up and shoot you in the head without cause.

Applying this to the unborn, we see that early in pregnancy, the child has no mind and therefore does not exist as a moral agent. As pregnancy continues and the brain develops, a mind emerges that will be easily recognized in later stages and post-birth. The child appears to experience some level of self-awareness and therefore constitutes a moral agent comparable, perhaps, to certain other animals (though species-loyalty and various ethical concerns regarding slippery slopes and the like lead society to generally weigh human life more heavily than non-human life). This is when we enter the arguments about life of the mother and two-patient obstetrics (treating mother and child as two patients), weighing the welfare of mother and child in the event that the pregnancy becomes such that one or both of their lives is in jeopardy.

As Joe B131 said in post 16, it depends on where on the timeline of pre-natal development we're talking about.


Note that none of this has anything to do with the OP's 'the baby could be Hitler- or Ghandi!' line of not-reasoning.

The majority of women who have abortions are mothers. Being a mother doesn't equal being pro-life.

Could you source that, please?

 

[varelse]

Hi, you have received -2503 reputation points from WillowTree.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Q

Regards,
WillowTree

Note: This is an automated message.

WillowTree has chosen not to receive private messages or may not be allowed to receive private messages. Therefore you may not send your message to him/her.

 

[nitroz]

Tax payers? Or welfare recipients? Or human lives that shouldn't be so cheaply used for your own ******* political purposes?

cheaply used !!! you and your political kind support the deaths of 50 million unborn children !!

"children"?

First they were "newborns"...then they were "infants"...then they were "babies"...now they are "children"....what's next "teenagers"?

Nah. Senior Citizens.

 

[logical4u]

Okay, here you go.

Live Births and Birth Rates, by Year | Infoplease.com

Number of live births in the US by year.

1970 3,731,386 18.4
1971 3,555,970 17.2
1972 3,258,411 15.6
1973 3,136,965 14.9
1974 3,159,958 14.9
1975 3,144,198 14.8
1976 3,167,788 14.8
1977 3,326,632 15.4

The change between 1972 (The last year abortions were illegal) and 1974 (The first full year of legal abortions) was negliable. by 1977, it started creeping back up again.

In short, legalizing abortion did not cause teh birth rate to drop. Because the kind of woman who was inclined to have an abortion was going to get one, regardless.

And the evidence that abortions were occurring at the same rate before 1972?.......

What, are you fuckin' retarded?

The statement was made, just looking for some evidence.

 

[logical4u]

Wow, this is quite possibly the dumbest pro-life argument I've ever heard. My mind is completely blown with the idiocy it just had to process.

The argument that abortions eliminate government's cheapest most reliable access to loyal workers and taxpayers is, in fact, what underpinned the leadership of the Reagan Revolution's affinity for religious nutters like Falwell, Robinson, et al.

Obviously, this essentially utilitarian view of government's rights over citizens never made it into the public domain in a big way; but it is the original (utilitarian) argument against abortion, and it is the pov that sealed GHW Bush's "conversion" in 1980.

So.... you are okay with people not paying taxes (not supporting those that choose to collect welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, unemployment)?

 

[yidnar]

Children are the main reason 47% of households pay no federal income tax.

53 % of children that are born and grow pay all the taxes collected by the government !! so if libbs want more tax revenues why are they for killing future tax payers ??

 

[JoeB131]

Quote: Originally Posted by FJO View Post
Aren't you glad their mothers were pro-life and gave the undeserved lives to these pieces of human garbage, lives which they are hell bent on denying babies in the womb?
I have no opinion about that one way or the other. People make their own choices at the end of the day, and there are gong to be be abortions no matter what the law is.
Reply With Quote

OK, let me ask YOU, personally, JoeB131, aren't you glad that your mommy was pro life and gave you the chance to spew anti-life garbage here?

Yes, but only because she wanted a child.

I would not have wanted to be in a position where I was raised by a woman who had no intention of being a mother and saw me as the thing that fucked up all her dreams and aspirations.

 

[JoeB131]

And the evidence that abortions were occurring at the same rate before 1972?.......

What, are you fuckin' retarded?

The statement was made, just looking for some evidence.

Which I provided and you didn't understand.

Because you are either retarded or religious. Hard to really tell, though.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, REPORTAGE increased, not incidence.

You're being dishonest. You said the incidence of abortion was the same prior to 1973 as post 1973. You've been asked for a citation of this twice, from two different posters, and both times you have dodged providing a citation. Now why is that? Could it be because your original assertion was complete BS?

No, I gave you an answer.

The birth rate did not drop between 1972 and 1974. It remained about the same.

So either one of two things happened.

A lot more women got pregnant and then got abortions.

The same number of women got pregnant, and the same number had abortions.

So let's logically look at that.

It assumes that a woman who was really careful in 1972 threw all caution to the wind in 1974 because, hey, she could now.

Or that she always knew where to "take care of that little problem". It was just she didn't have to hide what she was doing in 1974.

 

[FJO]

Quote: Originally Posted by FJO View Post
Aren't you glad their mothers were pro-life and gave the undeserved lives to these pieces of human garbage, lives which they are hell bent on denying babies in the womb?
I have no opinion about that one way or the other. People make their own choices at the end of the day, and there are gong to be be abortions no matter what the law is.
Reply With Quote

OK, let me ask YOU, personally, JoeB131, aren't you glad that your mommy was pro life and gave you the chance to spew anti-life garbage here?

Yes, but only because she wanted a child.

I would not have wanted to be in a position where I was raised by a woman who had no intention of being a mother and saw me as the thing that fucked up all her dreams and aspirations.

The fact (your own words) that a child can and does "**** up all dreams and aspirations" of a woman makes me hope that you and your ilk never have a chance to perpetuate your useless existence by giving life to an unfortunate child, as your mother had with you.

Do you and your fellow sex-crazy egotists even know the meaning of the word "abstinence"? Or self-respect? Or honor? Or love?

 

[Cowman]

We've just imported 50 million people so we haven't really lost anything except what the idea of Country means.

I thought importing people was what the country means....

Those would be Americans who just happened to be born someplace else. Today's immigrants aren't your grandpa's immigrants. Not a one of them would have refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag.

Immigrants are of the same ******* mind and mentality today as they were a hundred plus years ago.

Also, your Pledge of Allegiance wasn't even ******* adopted by the United States Congress until long after your "grandpa's immigrants" came here.

You're dumb.

Besides, your Pledge of Allegiance was written by a Christian Socialist who you would mock to this day for his views, and he would chastise you for your worship of capitalism.