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

[Dan Stubbs]

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 she did not say that.

Enlighten me then, what did you interpret her to say?

-Geaux

Fact is I don't think they know what they are doing under the Planned Parenthood banner. The last I heard was harvesting baby parts, and T-cells and whatever they can remove from a dead baby. This is done on a franchise basis, I could be wrong about the franchise thing. I think they sell the termination of the Kid as the best why to doing it. I can not think of them ever suggesting to keep or put the child up for adoption. So that s about all I know about that little Federal Funded Org.

 

[MaryL]

All I am saying is GOD kills babies, too. God and that magnificent yet inexplicable PLAN of his. I don't understand it, but's that's how the universe works.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

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 **** 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?

Right on Bro.

 

[hadit]

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 **** 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.

That's not playing God. That's living our lives. There will always be those with more and those with less.

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

Does that make it right to kill babies before they're born? "I got mine, you don't get yours. Good luck surviving a hole in the head."

3) What is life worth? Hey, we ******* 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.

That's nothing. We let tens of thousands of people die every year just so we can drive fast.

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?

You have to have a sperm fertilize an egg to get a new life. You know that. So, no, that's dumb. If you get her pregnant, though, now you have a new life.

 

[hadit]

All I am saying is GOD kills babies, too. God and that magnificent yet inexplicable PLAN of his. I don't understand it, but's that's how the universe works.

A cop is authorized to kill people. You are not. See the difference?

 

[JoeMoma]

Grandpa had cats on his farm to help control the mice. But he didn't want to be overrun with feral cats, so when a cat had kittens he would pack them up in an onion sack and toss them in the river.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

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.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

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 **** 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.

That's not playing God. That's living our lives. There will always be those with more and those with less.

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

Does that make it right to kill babies before they're born? "I got mine, you don't get yours. Good luck surviving a hole in the head."

3) What is life worth? Hey, we ******* 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.

That's nothing. We let tens of thousands of people die every year just so we can drive fast.

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?

You have to have a sperm fertilize an egg to get a new life. You know that. So, no, that's dumb. If you get her pregnant, though, now you have a new life.

If that is the case they need to give older people more drugs, fast cars, and a crack whore to push them along one the trail of death.

 

[RealDave]

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 better to just kill them all instead.

Nice.

Well, seeing as this appears to be the policy of the right anyway, what with wars, executions, an unwillingness to help the children once they're born.

You do realize that 75% of pregnancies end in abortion before the mother even knows about it, right? Damn, God must be one evil bastard.

Shhhhhhhhhhh.

People claim life begins at conception. Evidently, God reaches down & places a soul in that fertilized egg.

After a bit, the egg moves down the fallopian tubes where it must attach to the wall of the womb. This does not happen in a high percentage of the cases. I don't know the percent but I think its over 50%.

So, if this fertilized egg fails to attach to the womb wall, it is aborted naturally by the body.

Then God as to reach down & take back that soul.

Don't you think God would be more efficient than that? Certainly, you think he would wait until it actually attaches. Maybe until it is more certain the pregnancy will be successful?

Oh it is so easy to say human life starts at conception but in reality it stsrts later than that.

 

[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.

So better to just kill them all instead.

Nice.

Well, seeing as this appears to be the policy of the right anyway, what with wars, executions, an unwillingness to help the children once they're born.

You do realize that 75% of pregnancies end in abortion before the mother even knows about it, right? Damn, God must be one evil bastard.

Shhhhhhhhhhh.

People claim life begins at conception. Evidently, God reaches down & places a soul in that fertilized egg.

After a bit, the egg moves down the fallopian tubes where it must attach to the wall of the womb. This does not happen in a high percentage of the cases. I don't know the percent but I think its over 50%.

So, if this fertilized egg fails to attach to the womb wall, it is aborted naturally by the body.

Then God as to reach down & take back that soul.

Don't you think God would be more efficient than that? Certainly, you think he would wait until it actually attaches. Maybe until it is more certain the pregnancy will be successful?

Oh it is so easy to say human life starts at conception but in reality it stsrts later than that.

Or maybe God doesn't exist at all.