When You Can’t Face Reality....

[Cecilie1200]

This is where we differ, bro.....and why I'm not optimistic about the future of Western Civilization.

Nothing matters any more.

To embrace tolerance is to cease to believe in anything. Chesterton

"There are control devices, and then there are control mechanisms" (Mr. Spock)

Whether you call it "politically incorrect", or "conscience", or "peer pressure", or "the thought police", or "sin", or "unlawful", or any other mechanism that's used to manage societal norms, its something controlling your behavior.

Western civilization always had pockets of "bad behavior". Today any bad behavior is instant global news. I think on the whole Western civilization is sound, in spite of black pits like Amsterdam, or San Francisco...
Amsterdam drug laws and etiquette
San Francisco - where drug addicts outnumber high school students

Is the drug problem "chlorine in the gene pool"? (stupid is as stupid does)

Similarly, is abortion keeping the prison population down? (I've seen studies)

As cold-blooded as this sounds, I'd rather see dead druggies than keep supporting them in prison.
Babies don't have a choice, so their moms make it for them...

I know I shouldn't let you drag me off into a different topic....but, it is interesting.

"Similarly, is abortion keeping the prison population down? (I've seen studies)

As cold-blooded as this sounds, I'd rather see dead druggies than keep supporting them in prison.
Babies don't have a choice, so their moms make it for them..."

First, why use a felon's drug habit as a reason to allow the slaughter of an innocent?
Second, how about we simply solve the drug problem:
Confiscate drugs as we arrest users.
Adulterate the drugs with chemicals that turn users green.
Recirculate the drugs via undercovers, and use the profits to support law enforcement.
Finally......we arrest all the green people.

Third, pass laws such as "Georgia governor Brian Kemp signed perhaps the most impressive and comprehensively pro-life “heartbeat bill” in the nation. The law (set to go into effect in 2020) not only bans abortion when the baby has a “detectable human heartbeat” it declares the scientific, philosophical, and theological truth that an unborn child is a “natural person” under state law."
Georgia Heartbeat Bill Won't Imprison Women Who Have Abortions | National Review

First, my point was that unwanted babies, or those born into low-life homes generally end up in prison. Nothing to do with a "felon's drug habit". Who takes care of those 600,000 un-aborted babies a year?

Second, drugs can never be removed, they are all over and come into the US from everywhere. Can drugs be used to advantage to eliminate bad segments, such as by allowing fentanyl to be used, i.e, stupid is as stupid does, aka "chlorine in the gene pool".

Third, philosophically agree with the GA heartbeat Bill, but then what do you do with the 600,000 un-aborted babies a year?
Abortion statistics in the United States - Wikipedia

Let's not do what the bureaucrats do, and imagine that events are static when, most human behavior is dynamic.

If individuals knew that abortion as birth control would not be available, there would not be 600,000 such babies.

It's not as though the participants don't know how the baby came to be.

1. Events happen, static or otherwise. If you ban abortions, do you support Planned Parenthood and subsidized birth control? Otherwise, what do you do with the 600,000 un-aborted babies? Generally US adoptions are only about 135,000 a year. So who takes care of those extra babies? Foster care?
2. My spoof of drug deaths is only half kidding. Who can be that fucking stupid? They must really be dumb.
3. see #1......with subsidized birth control how low can we get abortions+adoptions?

I like how you just ghosted past her refutation of your numbers, and then restated the numbers as though they were accepted fact.

Second of all, I question your motives in even asking this question. What do we do with babies we don't kill NOW? I'm a little confused as to your bewilderment on this subject.

Third, what is this whole "Well, if you're not going to let us kill babies, then you have to buy us birth control!" schtick? That's like a man telling us that if we're not going to let him shoot his ex-wife, we have to be responsible for the alimony payments.

 

[Bush92]

It’s the position in which the Democrat Party has placed its voters…..demand that they support the most horrendous and barbaric of agendas. They can’t explain them,...

... so they must pretend they don’t exist.





1.I won’t tell you who said this…

“There is no infanticide.” why it does not bother trump to lie like a rug

But I will tell you this….he is real dumb.




2. The facts are that the major political party is actually a supporter of infanticide. On the other side of the aisle, Trump rails against this barbarism:

Trump “described what happens to a child after she is born alive following a failed abortion, saying, “The baby is born. The mother meets with the doctor, they take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully, and then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby. I don't think so. It's incredible.”
What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.




Hussein Obama supported infanticide...wouldn't vote to save the baby.

Obama named Peter Singer, champion of infanticide, as his 'science adviser.'
The Democrat administration in Virginia offered a law for...in favor of....infanticide....stopped by Republicans.

The Democrat governor of Virginia actually agreed with the bill for infanticide.

"New York abortion law changes allow infanticide"
New York abortion law changes allow infanticide

"Anti-infanticide bill blocked by Senate Democrats"
Anti-infanticide bill blocked by Senate Democrats





3. Here’s the context. One of the major selling points of the Left/Democrats is that no personal responsibility is ever required, up to an including taking responsibility for creating a new and unique human being. So, if one does create that life, no prob: kill it and more on.

Somehow this is meant to resonate with women who make a ‘mistake,’ and want the right to eradicate it.

Almost 99 % of all abortions are for nothing more than convenience. And this is perfectly alright for the Left.



That's the reality.

Abortion is murder point blank.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"You think, “Nope, progressives can’t possibly be any dumber,” and then they proceed to reset the dumbness bar. The latest example is Alyssa Milano, who has publicly announced she’s not going to have sex anymore until people can once again kill babies without restraint.

...Milano is not going to have sex unless and until you allow her to kill babies. I am unclear on what our reaction is supposed to be. Does she expect us to pull a 180 on pre-birth infanticide in order ...?"
Liberal Sex Strike Fails To Score




Perhaps Milano hasn't heard the rumor that having sex is somehow related to......becoming pregnant.
And if one refused to become pregnant......well, she falls right into the clutches of us evil pro-lifers!
Can't kill your baby if you don't become pregnant.
(Shhhh......keep it on the downlow......don't let the Liberal dunces in on this)

 

[PoliticalChic]

It’s the position in which the Democrat Party has placed its voters…..demand that they support the most horrendous and barbaric of agendas. They can’t explain them,...

... so they must pretend they don’t exist.





1.I won’t tell you who said this…

“There is no infanticide.” why it does not bother trump to lie like a rug

But I will tell you this….he is real dumb.




2. The facts are that the major political party is actually a supporter of infanticide. On the other side of the aisle, Trump rails against this barbarism:

Trump “described what happens to a child after she is born alive following a failed abortion, saying, “The baby is born. The mother meets with the doctor, they take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully, and then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby. I don't think so. It's incredible.”
What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.




Hussein Obama supported infanticide...wouldn't vote to save the baby.

Obama named Peter Singer, champion of infanticide, as his 'science adviser.'
The Democrat administration in Virginia offered a law for...in favor of....infanticide....stopped by Republicans.

The Democrat governor of Virginia actually agreed with the bill for infanticide.

"New York abortion law changes allow infanticide"
New York abortion law changes allow infanticide

"Anti-infanticide bill blocked by Senate Democrats"
Anti-infanticide bill blocked by Senate Democrats





3. Here’s the context. One of the major selling points of the Left/Democrats is that no personal responsibility is ever required, up to an including taking responsibility for creating a new and unique human being. So, if one does create that life, no prob: kill it and more on.

Somehow this is meant to resonate with women who make a ‘mistake,’ and want the right to eradicate it.

Almost 99 % of all abortions are for nothing more than convenience. And this is perfectly alright for the Left.



That's the reality.

Abortion is murder point blank.

Spot on, Bushy!

One can only wonder why it is essential for Liberals/Democrats/Progressives to be permitted to kill an innocent, defenseless human being, that, in fact, they are intimately related to.
(Sorry to end a sentence with a preposition)

 

[kyzr]

It's hard to believe that Cuomo and Dolan are okay with infanticide?!
I'm also disappointed that Catholic bishops don't vigorously oppose abortions like the Evangelicals do!?
Maybe they're too busy covering up for pedophiles?

This is where we differ, bro.....and why I'm not optimistic about the future of Western Civilization.

Nothing matters any more.

To embrace tolerance is to cease to believe in anything. Chesterton

"There are control devices, and then there are control mechanisms" (Mr. Spock)

Whether you call it "politically incorrect", or "conscience", or "peer pressure", or "the thought police", or "sin", or "unlawful", or any other mechanism that's used to manage societal norms, its something controlling your behavior.

Western civilization always had pockets of "bad behavior". Today any bad behavior is instant global news. I think on the whole Western civilization is sound, in spite of black pits like Amsterdam, or San Francisco...
Amsterdam drug laws and etiquette
San Francisco - where drug addicts outnumber high school students

Is the drug problem "chlorine in the gene pool"? (stupid is as stupid does)

Similarly, is abortion keeping the prison population down? (I've seen studies)

As cold-blooded as this sounds, I'd rather see dead druggies than keep supporting them in prison.
Babies don't have a choice, so their moms make it for them...

I know I shouldn't let you drag me off into a different topic....but, it is interesting.

"Similarly, is abortion keeping the prison population down? (I've seen studies)

As cold-blooded as this sounds, I'd rather see dead druggies than keep supporting them in prison.
Babies don't have a choice, so their moms make it for them..."

First, why use a felon's drug habit as a reason to allow the slaughter of an innocent?
Second, how about we simply solve the drug problem:
Confiscate drugs as we arrest users.
Adulterate the drugs with chemicals that turn users green.
Recirculate the drugs via undercovers, and use the profits to support law enforcement.
Finally......we arrest all the green people.

Third, pass laws such as "Georgia governor Brian Kemp signed perhaps the most impressive and comprehensively pro-life “heartbeat bill” in the nation. The law (set to go into effect in 2020) not only bans abortion when the baby has a “detectable human heartbeat” it declares the scientific, philosophical, and theological truth that an unborn child is a “natural person” under state law."
Georgia Heartbeat Bill Won't Imprison Women Who Have Abortions | National Review

First, my point was that unwanted babies, or those born into low-life homes generally end up in prison. Nothing to do with a "felon's drug habit". Who takes care of those 600,000 un-aborted babies a year?

Second, drugs can never be removed, they are all over and come into the US from everywhere. Can drugs be used to advantage to eliminate bad segments, such as by allowing fentanyl to be used, i.e, stupid is as stupid does, aka "chlorine in the gene pool"?

Third, philosophically agree with the GA heartbeat Bill, but then what do you do with the 600,000 un-aborted babies a year?
Abortion statistics in the United States - Wikipedia

Sorry, but what makes you think there would be 600,000 unaborted babies a year? The assumption that rates of unintended pregnancies would remain static and unchanged by a change in abortion law is a very big and utterly unsupported assumption to make.

I don't make optimistic assumptions. Even if the birth rate is cut in half, that's still 300,000 more babies to care for.
So who takes care of the 300,000 unwanted babies? Foster care?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I know I shouldn't let you drag me off into a different topic....but, it is interesting.

"Similarly, is abortion keeping the prison population down? (I've seen studies)

As cold-blooded as this sounds, I'd rather see dead druggies than keep supporting them in prison.
Babies don't have a choice, so their moms make it for them..."

First, why use a felon's drug habit as a reason to allow the slaughter of an innocent?
Second, how about we simply solve the drug problem:
Confiscate drugs as we arrest users.
Adulterate the drugs with chemicals that turn users green.
Recirculate the drugs via undercovers, and use the profits to support law enforcement.
Finally......we arrest all the green people.

Third, pass laws such as "Georgia governor Brian Kemp signed perhaps the most impressive and comprehensively pro-life “heartbeat bill” in the nation. The law (set to go into effect in 2020) not only bans abortion when the baby has a “detectable human heartbeat” it declares the scientific, philosophical, and theological truth that an unborn child is a “natural person” under state law."
Georgia Heartbeat Bill Won't Imprison Women Who Have Abortions | National Review

First, my point was that unwanted babies, or those born into low-life homes generally end up in prison. Nothing to do with a "felon's drug habit". Who takes care of those 600,000 un-aborted babies a year?

Second, drugs can never be removed, they are all over and come into the US from everywhere. Can drugs be used to advantage to eliminate bad segments, such as by allowing fentanyl to be used, i.e, stupid is as stupid does, aka "chlorine in the gene pool".

Third, philosophically agree with the GA heartbeat Bill, but then what do you do with the 600,000 un-aborted babies a year?
Abortion statistics in the United States - Wikipedia

Let's not do what the bureaucrats do, and imagine that events are static when, most human behavior is dynamic.

If individuals knew that abortion as birth control would not be available, there would not be 600,000 such babies.

It's not as though the participants don't know how the baby came to be.

1. Events happen, static or otherwise. If you ban abortions, do you support Planned Parenthood and subsidized birth control? Otherwise, what do you do with the 600,000 un-aborted babies? Generally US adoptions are only about 135,000 a year. So who takes care of those extra babies? Foster care?
2. My spoof of drug deaths is only half kidding. Who can be that fucking stupid? They must really be dumb.
3. see #1......with subsidized birth control how low can we get abortions+adoptions?

"do you support Planned Parenthood and subsidized birth control?"

Are you serious???? We already do.
Planned Parenthood receives over a third of its money in government grants and contracts (about $528 million in 2014).

"Otherwise, what do you do with the 600,000 un-aborted babies? "
If abortion is no longer available as birth control, there won't be nearly that number. Human beings alter behavior based on options.

"If abortion is no longer available as birth control, there won't be nearly that number. Human beings alter behavior based on options."

Disagree!! If abortions won't stop unwanted pregnancies, "no abortions" won't either. Dumb human beings do not alter behavior. So the question remains, what do you do with the 600,000 un-aborted babies? Say even 300,000 more, half get smart and half don't. That's still a lot of babies to care for!!

Excuse me, but why would abortion stop unwanted pregnancies? What is there about, "You can just kill any babies you make" which would in any way incline people to make fewer babies in the first place? Your logic is not like our Earth logic.

Also, even dumb human beings still have basic stimuli response. And I frankly doubt there's all that high a number of humans THAT stupid, that they can't figure out, "Hey, if I get pregnant, I'm gonna have to actually have a baby!"

So the question remains, why do you keep insisting that the number will remain static, and why do you act like the idea of "How do you deal with a living baby?!" is such a stumper? Are you actually telling us killing them is somehow preferable because they're inconvenient?

 

[PoliticalChic]

When You Can’t Face Reality



you're a Trumpdrone

Imagine how different your life would be if you had the intellectual ability to participate one one side or the other in a debate.


Instead, you're as useless as rubber lips on a woodpecker.

 

[Bush92]

It’s the position in which the Democrat Party has placed its voters…..demand that they support the most horrendous and barbaric of agendas. They can’t explain them,...

... so they must pretend they don’t exist.





1.I won’t tell you who said this…

“There is no infanticide.” why it does not bother trump to lie like a rug

But I will tell you this….he is real dumb.




2. The facts are that the major political party is actually a supporter of infanticide. On the other side of the aisle, Trump rails against this barbarism:

Trump “described what happens to a child after she is born alive following a failed abortion, saying, “The baby is born. The mother meets with the doctor, they take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully, and then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby. I don't think so. It's incredible.”
What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.




Hussein Obama supported infanticide...wouldn't vote to save the baby.

Obama named Peter Singer, champion of infanticide, as his 'science adviser.'
The Democrat administration in Virginia offered a law for...in favor of....infanticide....stopped by Republicans.

The Democrat governor of Virginia actually agreed with the bill for infanticide.

"New York abortion law changes allow infanticide"
New York abortion law changes allow infanticide

"Anti-infanticide bill blocked by Senate Democrats"
Anti-infanticide bill blocked by Senate Democrats





3. Here’s the context. One of the major selling points of the Left/Democrats is that no personal responsibility is ever required, up to an including taking responsibility for creating a new and unique human being. So, if one does create that life, no prob: kill it and more on.

Somehow this is meant to resonate with women who make a ‘mistake,’ and want the right to eradicate it.

Almost 99 % of all abortions are for nothing more than convenience. And this is perfectly alright for the Left.



That's the reality.

Abortion is murder point blank.

Spot on, Bushy!

One can only wonder why it is essential for Liberals/Democrats/Progressives to be permitted to kill an innocent, defenseless human being, that, in fact, they are intimately related to.
(Sorry to end a sentence with a preposition)

Just look at history of genocide and infanticide from the political left. Communism, fascism,and socialism has given the world the Holocaust, death camps, gulags, and abortion.

 

[kyzr]

First, my point was that unwanted babies, or those born into low-life homes generally end up in prison. Nothing to do with a "felon's drug habit". Who takes care of those 600,000 un-aborted babies a year?

Second, drugs can never be removed, they are all over and come into the US from everywhere. Can drugs be used to advantage to eliminate bad segments, such as by allowing fentanyl to be used, i.e, stupid is as stupid does, aka "chlorine in the gene pool".

Third, philosophically agree with the GA heartbeat Bill, but then what do you do with the 600,000 un-aborted babies a year?
Abortion statistics in the United States - Wikipedia

Let's not do what the bureaucrats do, and imagine that events are static when, most human behavior is dynamic.

If individuals knew that abortion as birth control would not be available, there would not be 600,000 such babies.

It's not as though the participants don't know how the baby came to be.

1. Events happen, static or otherwise. If you ban abortions, do you support Planned Parenthood and subsidized birth control? Otherwise, what do you do with the 600,000 un-aborted babies? Generally US adoptions are only about 135,000 a year. So who takes care of those extra babies? Foster care?
2. My spoof of drug deaths is only half kidding. Who can be that fucking stupid? They must really be dumb.
3. see #1......with subsidized birth control how low can we get abortions+adoptions?

"do you support Planned Parenthood and subsidized birth control?"

Are you serious???? We already do.
Planned Parenthood receives over a third of its money in government grants and contracts (about $528 million in 2014).

"Otherwise, what do you do with the 600,000 un-aborted babies? "
If abortion is no longer available as birth control, there won't be nearly that number. Human beings alter behavior based on options.

"If abortion is no longer available as birth control, there won't be nearly that number. Human beings alter behavior based on options."

Disagree!! If abortions won't stop unwanted pregnancies, "no abortions" won't either. Dumb human beings do not alter behavior. So the question remains, what do you do with the 600,000 un-aborted babies? Say even 300,000 more, half get smart and half don't. That's still a lot of babies to care for!!

Excuse me, but why would abortion stop unwanted pregnancies? What is there about, "You can just kill any babies you make" which would in any way incline people to make fewer babies in the first place? Your logic is not like our Earth logic.

Also, even dumb human beings still have basic stimuli response. And I frankly doubt there's all that high a number of humans THAT stupid, that they can't figure out, "Hey, if I get pregnant, I'm gonna have to actually have a baby!"

So the question remains, why do you keep insisting that the number will remain static, and why do you act like the idea of "How do you deal with a living baby?!" is such a stumper? Are you actually telling us killing them is somehow preferable because they're inconvenient?

The abortion discussion is going something like this:
1. Currently there are about 600,000 abortions performed in the US each year.
2. If abortions are made illegal, how many new babies will be born, and who will care for them.
3. My number is 300,000 new unaborted babies, half, not static, so who takes care of them? (100,000 or 200,000 is just as problematic, but planning needs to be done to address whatever the number is)

So having an abortion, or having a baby and then putting it up for adoption (or Foster care) needs new funding. Who pays for uninsured births? MEDICAID. Who pays for the foster care cost? That's right, taxpayers.

 

[danielpalos]

It’s the position in which the Democrat Party has placed its voters…..demand that they support the most horrendous and barbaric of agendas. They can’t explain them,...

... so they must pretend they don’t exist.





1.I won’t tell you who said this…

“There is no infanticide.” why it does not bother trump to lie like a rug

But I will tell you this….he is real dumb.




2. The facts are that the major political party is actually a supporter of infanticide. On the other side of the aisle, Trump rails against this barbarism:

Trump “described what happens to a child after she is born alive following a failed abortion, saying, “The baby is born. The mother meets with the doctor, they take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully, and then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby. I don't think so. It's incredible.”
What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.




Hussein Obama supported infanticide...wouldn't vote to save the baby.

Obama named Peter Singer, champion of infanticide, as his 'science adviser.'
The Democrat administration in Virginia offered a law for...in favor of....infanticide....stopped by Republicans.

The Democrat governor of Virginia actually agreed with the bill for infanticide.

"New York abortion law changes allow infanticide"
New York abortion law changes allow infanticide

"Anti-infanticide bill blocked by Senate Democrats"
Anti-infanticide bill blocked by Senate Democrats





3. Here’s the context. One of the major selling points of the Left/Democrats is that no personal responsibility is ever required, up to an including taking responsibility for creating a new and unique human being. So, if one does create that life, no prob: kill it and more on.

Somehow this is meant to resonate with women who make a ‘mistake,’ and want the right to eradicate it.

Almost 99 % of all abortions are for nothing more than convenience. And this is perfectly alright for the Left.



That's the reality.

Prevention is more ethical. There should be no need for abortion in modern times.

 

[Bush92]

When You Can’t Face Reality



you're a Trumpdrone

Imagine how different your life would be if you had the intellectual ability to participate one one side or the other in a debate.


Instead, you're as useless as rubber lips on a woodpecker.

Alyssa Milano is going to stop having sex until Georgia repeals the heartbeat bill. Good. She is not responsible enough to have sex. If she gets pregnant she will murder the baby.

 

[danielpalos]

When You Can’t Face Reality



you're a Trumpdrone

Imagine how different your life would be if you had the intellectual ability to participate one one side or the other in a debate.


Instead, you're as useless as rubber lips on a woodpecker.

Alyssa Milano is going to stop having sex until Georgia repeals the heartbeat bill. Good. She is not responsible enough to have sex. If she gets pregnant she will murder the baby.

we should support advances in contraception technologies; women should be able to have the Option of only getting pregnant by Mr. Right, regardless of all of the other ones.

 

[Cecilie1200]

4. There is no way to separate abortion from infanticide for this reason: what if a child is born as a result of an unsuccessful attempted abortion?

And, as several states now allow abortion up to the moment of birth,… “The state of New York recently passed a horrific new abortion law removing almost all previous restrictions. The law now allows abortions to be performed up to the point of natural birth by physicians and also by some non-physician health care practitioners. It also removes protections for babies who accidentally survive an abortion procedure.” New York abortion law changes allow infanticide


"7 states already allow abortion up to birth — not just New York"
7 states already allow abortion up to birth — not just New York





…..the result of what happens to that child is included here:

“The practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth.” infanticide | Definition of infanticide in English by Oxford Dictionaries



There is no dancing around it. It is infanticide.

Not by any legal definition..

Only amoral fools run to, "Legal! The law! The law dictates morality, science, and fact!"

Yet, law is an art more than a science.

I'm sorry, does that make some sort of sense on your planet that escapes humans?

Laws follow morality; they don't dictate morality. And morality should follow truth and fact. We are discussing what is true, factual, and morality, and what the laws SHOULD BE based on those things; telling us what the law IS RIGHT NOW, as though we don't know that and as if that has some bearing on the discussion, is just you revealing your lack of morals and linear thinking.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"You think, “Nope, progressives can’t possibly be any dumber,” and then they proceed to reset the dumbness bar. The latest example is Alyssa Milano, who has publicly announced she’s not going to have sex anymore until people can once again kill babies without restraint.

...Milano is not going to have sex unless and until you allow her to kill babies. I am unclear on what our reaction is supposed to be. Does she expect us to pull a 180 on pre-birth infanticide in order ...?"
Liberal Sex Strike Fails To Score




Perhaps Milano hasn't heard the rumor that having sex is somehow related to......becoming pregnant.
And if one refused to become pregnant......well, she falls right into the clutches of us evil pro-lifers!
Can't kill your baby if you don't become pregnant.
(Shhhh......keep it on the downlow......don't let the Liberal dunces in on this)

Matt Walsh had an excellent response to this today.

Here is what Milano said:

"Our reproductive rights are being erased. Until women have legal control over our own bodies we just cannot risk pregnancy. JOIN ME by not having sex until we get bodily autonomy back. I’m calling for a #SexStrike. Pass it on."

Here is Walsh's response:

"As a general rule, conservative men are not looking to date or marry hectoring feminists scolds. As we are choosing from an entirely different pool of potential mates, a sex boycott among the precise sorts of women we are determined to avoid does not cause us any real pain. A sex strike among feminists is, to us, like a kale shortage at the local vegan restaurant. Ironically, only the pro-abortion men, who have already sacrificed their man cards and their souls in submission to their feminist overlords, are being punished here. And it's a punishment they well deserve, even if it wasn't intended for them."

Ouch. That's some brutal honesty for you. But he has a point. Does Milano really imagine that she and her virago followers were of any interest to pro-life men in the first place?

He goes on:

"More to the point, Milano is finally conceding to an argument we've been making for decades. She says that women should avoid sex because they "cannot risk pregnancy," thus admitting two crucial points: 1) Sex is a procreative act. 2) If you aren't in an ideal position to procreate, you shouldn't engage in said procreative act. Put another way: sex makes babies. Don't want baby? Don't have sex. It shouldn't have taken feminists 60 years to have this epiphany, but better late than never."

Glad to know the feminist harpies have finally, belatedly, joined us on the correct page.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is where we differ, bro.....and why I'm not optimistic about the future of Western Civilization.

Nothing matters any more.

To embrace tolerance is to cease to believe in anything. Chesterton

"There are control devices, and then there are control mechanisms" (Mr. Spock)

Whether you call it "politically incorrect", or "conscience", or "peer pressure", or "the thought police", or "sin", or "unlawful", or any other mechanism that's used to manage societal norms, its something controlling your behavior.

Western civilization always had pockets of "bad behavior". Today any bad behavior is instant global news. I think on the whole Western civilization is sound, in spite of black pits like Amsterdam, or San Francisco...
Amsterdam drug laws and etiquette
San Francisco - where drug addicts outnumber high school students

Is the drug problem "chlorine in the gene pool"? (stupid is as stupid does)

Similarly, is abortion keeping the prison population down? (I've seen studies)

As cold-blooded as this sounds, I'd rather see dead druggies than keep supporting them in prison.
Babies don't have a choice, so their moms make it for them...

I know I shouldn't let you drag me off into a different topic....but, it is interesting.

"Similarly, is abortion keeping the prison population down? (I've seen studies)

As cold-blooded as this sounds, I'd rather see dead druggies than keep supporting them in prison.
Babies don't have a choice, so their moms make it for them..."

First, why use a felon's drug habit as a reason to allow the slaughter of an innocent?
Second, how about we simply solve the drug problem:
Confiscate drugs as we arrest users.
Adulterate the drugs with chemicals that turn users green.
Recirculate the drugs via undercovers, and use the profits to support law enforcement.
Finally......we arrest all the green people.

Third, pass laws such as "Georgia governor Brian Kemp signed perhaps the most impressive and comprehensively pro-life “heartbeat bill” in the nation. The law (set to go into effect in 2020) not only bans abortion when the baby has a “detectable human heartbeat” it declares the scientific, philosophical, and theological truth that an unborn child is a “natural person” under state law."
Georgia Heartbeat Bill Won't Imprison Women Who Have Abortions | National Review

First, my point was that unwanted babies, or those born into low-life homes generally end up in prison. Nothing to do with a "felon's drug habit". Who takes care of those 600,000 un-aborted babies a year?

Second, drugs can never be removed, they are all over and come into the US from everywhere. Can drugs be used to advantage to eliminate bad segments, such as by allowing fentanyl to be used, i.e, stupid is as stupid does, aka "chlorine in the gene pool"?

Third, philosophically agree with the GA heartbeat Bill, but then what do you do with the 600,000 un-aborted babies a year?
Abortion statistics in the United States - Wikipedia

Sorry, but what makes you think there would be 600,000 unaborted babies a year? The assumption that rates of unintended pregnancies would remain static and unchanged by a change in abortion law is a very big and utterly unsupported assumption to make.

I don't make optimistic assumptions. Even if the birth rate is cut in half, that's still 300,000 more babies to care for.
So who takes care of the 300,000 unwanted babies? Foster care?

Which brings me to my following point: Why is this such a shocking, bewildering question to you? And why do you think anyone else is going to be as horrified as you are by it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let's not do what the bureaucrats do, and imagine that events are static when, most human behavior is dynamic.

If individuals knew that abortion as birth control would not be available, there would not be 600,000 such babies.

It's not as though the participants don't know how the baby came to be.

1. Events happen, static or otherwise. If you ban abortions, do you support Planned Parenthood and subsidized birth control? Otherwise, what do you do with the 600,000 un-aborted babies? Generally US adoptions are only about 135,000 a year. So who takes care of those extra babies? Foster care?
2. My spoof of drug deaths is only half kidding. Who can be that fucking stupid? They must really be dumb.
3. see #1......with subsidized birth control how low can we get abortions+adoptions?

"do you support Planned Parenthood and subsidized birth control?"

Are you serious???? We already do.
Planned Parenthood receives over a third of its money in government grants and contracts (about $528 million in 2014).

"Otherwise, what do you do with the 600,000 un-aborted babies? "
If abortion is no longer available as birth control, there won't be nearly that number. Human beings alter behavior based on options.

"If abortion is no longer available as birth control, there won't be nearly that number. Human beings alter behavior based on options."

Disagree!! If abortions won't stop unwanted pregnancies, "no abortions" won't either. Dumb human beings do not alter behavior. So the question remains, what do you do with the 600,000 un-aborted babies? Say even 300,000 more, half get smart and half don't. That's still a lot of babies to care for!!

Excuse me, but why would abortion stop unwanted pregnancies? What is there about, "You can just kill any babies you make" which would in any way incline people to make fewer babies in the first place? Your logic is not like our Earth logic.

Also, even dumb human beings still have basic stimuli response. And I frankly doubt there's all that high a number of humans THAT stupid, that they can't figure out, "Hey, if I get pregnant, I'm gonna have to actually have a baby!"

So the question remains, why do you keep insisting that the number will remain static, and why do you act like the idea of "How do you deal with a living baby?!" is such a stumper? Are you actually telling us killing them is somehow preferable because they're inconvenient?

The abortion discussion is going something like this:
1. Currently there are about 600,000 abortions performed in the US each year.
2. If abortions are made illegal, how many new babies will be born, and who will care for them.
3. My number is 300,000 new unaborted babies, half, not static, so who takes care of them? (100,000 or 200,000 is just as problematic, but planning needs to be done to address whatever the number is)

So having an abortion, or having a baby and then putting it up for adoption (or Foster care) needs new funding. Who pays for uninsured births? MEDICAID. Who pays for the foster care cost? That's right, taxpayers.

No, the abortion discussion is going something like this: "OMG, unplanned babies will live and have to be taken care of!! PANIC!!!"

If you're looking for, "It's cheaper to just kill babies" to be your winning argument here, please say so now, because I don't feel any need to have soulless evil on my screen.

 

[kyzr]

"There are control devices, and then there are control mechanisms" (Mr. Spock)

Whether you call it "politically incorrect", or "conscience", or "peer pressure", or "the thought police", or "sin", or "unlawful", or any other mechanism that's used to manage societal norms, its something controlling your behavior.

Western civilization always had pockets of "bad behavior". Today any bad behavior is instant global news. I think on the whole Western civilization is sound, in spite of black pits like Amsterdam, or San Francisco...
Amsterdam drug laws and etiquette
San Francisco - where drug addicts outnumber high school students

Is the drug problem "chlorine in the gene pool"? (stupid is as stupid does)

Similarly, is abortion keeping the prison population down? (I've seen studies)

As cold-blooded as this sounds, I'd rather see dead druggies than keep supporting them in prison.
Babies don't have a choice, so their moms make it for them...

I know I shouldn't let you drag me off into a different topic....but, it is interesting.

"Similarly, is abortion keeping the prison population down? (I've seen studies)

As cold-blooded as this sounds, I'd rather see dead druggies than keep supporting them in prison.
Babies don't have a choice, so their moms make it for them..."

First, why use a felon's drug habit as a reason to allow the slaughter of an innocent?
Second, how about we simply solve the drug problem:
Confiscate drugs as we arrest users.
Adulterate the drugs with chemicals that turn users green.
Recirculate the drugs via undercovers, and use the profits to support law enforcement.
Finally......we arrest all the green people.

Third, pass laws such as "Georgia governor Brian Kemp signed perhaps the most impressive and comprehensively pro-life “heartbeat bill” in the nation. The law (set to go into effect in 2020) not only bans abortion when the baby has a “detectable human heartbeat” it declares the scientific, philosophical, and theological truth that an unborn child is a “natural person” under state law."
Georgia Heartbeat Bill Won't Imprison Women Who Have Abortions | National Review

First, my point was that unwanted babies, or those born into low-life homes generally end up in prison. Nothing to do with a "felon's drug habit". Who takes care of those 600,000 un-aborted babies a year?

Second, drugs can never be removed, they are all over and come into the US from everywhere. Can drugs be used to advantage to eliminate bad segments, such as by allowing fentanyl to be used, i.e, stupid is as stupid does, aka "chlorine in the gene pool"?

Third, philosophically agree with the GA heartbeat Bill, but then what do you do with the 600,000 un-aborted babies a year?
Abortion statistics in the United States - Wikipedia

Sorry, but what makes you think there would be 600,000 unaborted babies a year? The assumption that rates of unintended pregnancies would remain static and unchanged by a change in abortion law is a very big and utterly unsupported assumption to make.

I don't make optimistic assumptions. Even if the birth rate is cut in half, that's still 300,000 more babies to care for.
So who takes care of the 300,000 unwanted babies? Foster care?

Which brings me to my following point: Why is this such a shocking, bewildering question to you? And why do you think anyone else is going to be as horrified as you are by it?

Why is it that you always ask rhetorical questions instead of answering the ones in the post you're responding to?
Who takes care of the ~300,000 unwanted babies born if abortion of outlawed? Hint: the babies' mothers cannot.
Maybe we should start a signup sheet for the women against abortion to adopt those unwanted babies?
You sign up for a few?

If not you, then who?

 

[kyzr]

1. Events happen, static or otherwise. If you ban abortions, do you support Planned Parenthood and subsidized birth control? Otherwise, what do you do with the 600,000 un-aborted babies? Generally US adoptions are only about 135,000 a year. So who takes care of those extra babies? Foster care?
2. My spoof of drug deaths is only half kidding. Who can be that fucking stupid? They must really be dumb.
3. see #1......with subsidized birth control how low can we get abortions+adoptions?

"do you support Planned Parenthood and subsidized birth control?"

Are you serious???? We already do.
Planned Parenthood receives over a third of its money in government grants and contracts (about $528 million in 2014).

"Otherwise, what do you do with the 600,000 un-aborted babies? "
If abortion is no longer available as birth control, there won't be nearly that number. Human beings alter behavior based on options.

"If abortion is no longer available as birth control, there won't be nearly that number. Human beings alter behavior based on options."

Disagree!! If abortions won't stop unwanted pregnancies, "no abortions" won't either. Dumb human beings do not alter behavior. So the question remains, what do you do with the 600,000 un-aborted babies? Say even 300,000 more, half get smart and half don't. That's still a lot of babies to care for!!

Excuse me, but why would abortion stop unwanted pregnancies? What is there about, "You can just kill any babies you make" which would in any way incline people to make fewer babies in the first place? Your logic is not like our Earth logic.

Also, even dumb human beings still have basic stimuli response. And I frankly doubt there's all that high a number of humans THAT stupid, that they can't figure out, "Hey, if I get pregnant, I'm gonna have to actually have a baby!"

So the question remains, why do you keep insisting that the number will remain static, and why do you act like the idea of "How do you deal with a living baby?!" is such a stumper? Are you actually telling us killing them is somehow preferable because they're inconvenient?

The abortion discussion is going something like this:
1. Currently there are about 600,000 abortions performed in the US each year.
2. If abortions are made illegal, how many new babies will be born, and who will care for them.
3. My number is 300,000 new unaborted babies, half, not static, so who takes care of them? (100,000 or 200,000 is just as problematic, but planning needs to be done to address whatever the number is)

So having an abortion, or having a baby and then putting it up for adoption (or Foster care) needs new funding. Who pays for uninsured births? MEDICAID. Who pays for the foster care cost? That's right, taxpayers.

No, the abortion discussion is going something like this: "OMG, unplanned babies will live and have to be taken care of!! PANIC!!!"

If you're looking for, "It's cheaper to just kill babies" to be your winning argument here, please say so now, because I don't feel any need to have soulless evil on my screen.

I'm looking for your contingency plan to address new babies that are born because abortions are made illegal, and the mothers can't care for the baby for whatever reason.
How about, option to have tubes tied for free? How about, free vasectomys too?
If abortions are made illegal, planning needs to be done. If you think no new babies would happen, you're wrong.

Are debating ideas too difficult for you, so you resort to "soulless evil" comments?
I could call you names too and we could be just like the rest of the idiots here.

 

[otto105]

It’s the position in which the Democrat Party has placed its voters…..demand that they support the most horrendous and barbaric of agendas. They can’t explain them,...

... so they must pretend they don’t exist.





1.I won’t tell you who said this…

“There is no infanticide.” why it does not bother trump to lie like a rug

But I will tell you this….he is real dumb.




2. The facts are that the major political party is actually a supporter of infanticide. On the other side of the aisle, Trump rails against this barbarism:

Trump “described what happens to a child after she is born alive following a failed abortion, saying, “The baby is born. The mother meets with the doctor, they take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully, and then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby. I don't think so. It's incredible.”
What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.




Hussein Obama supported infanticide...wouldn't vote to save the baby.

Obama named Peter Singer, champion of infanticide, as his 'science adviser.'
The Democrat administration in Virginia offered a law for...in favor of....infanticide....stopped by Republicans.

The Democrat governor of Virginia actually agreed with the bill for infanticide.

"New York abortion law changes allow infanticide"
New York abortion law changes allow infanticide

"Anti-infanticide bill blocked by Senate Democrats"
Anti-infanticide bill blocked by Senate Democrats





3. Here’s the context. One of the major selling points of the Left/Democrats is that no personal responsibility is ever required, up to an including taking responsibility for creating a new and unique human being. So, if one does create that life, no prob: kill it and more on.

Somehow this is meant to resonate with women who make a ‘mistake,’ and want the right to eradicate it.

Almost 99 % of all abortions are for nothing more than convenience. And this is perfectly alright for the Left.



That's the reality.

In going with the headline I thought this thread was a plea for voting republic.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It’s the position in which the Democrat Party has placed its voters…..demand that they support the most horrendous and barbaric of agendas. They can’t explain them,...

... so they must pretend they don’t exist.





1.I won’t tell you who said this…

“There is no infanticide.” why it does not bother trump to lie like a rug

But I will tell you this….he is real dumb.




2. The facts are that the major political party is actually a supporter of infanticide. On the other side of the aisle, Trump rails against this barbarism:

Trump “described what happens to a child after she is born alive following a failed abortion, saying, “The baby is born. The mother meets with the doctor, they take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully, and then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby. I don't think so. It's incredible.”
What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.




Hussein Obama supported infanticide...wouldn't vote to save the baby.

Obama named Peter Singer, champion of infanticide, as his 'science adviser.'
The Democrat administration in Virginia offered a law for...in favor of....infanticide....stopped by Republicans.

The Democrat governor of Virginia actually agreed with the bill for infanticide.

"New York abortion law changes allow infanticide"
New York abortion law changes allow infanticide

"Anti-infanticide bill blocked by Senate Democrats"
Anti-infanticide bill blocked by Senate Democrats





3. Here’s the context. One of the major selling points of the Left/Democrats is that no personal responsibility is ever required, up to an including taking responsibility for creating a new and unique human being. So, if one does create that life, no prob: kill it and more on.

Somehow this is meant to resonate with women who make a ‘mistake,’ and want the right to eradicate it.

Almost 99 % of all abortions are for nothing more than convenience. And this is perfectly alright for the Left.



That's the reality.

In going with the headline I thought this thread was a plea for voting republic.

Imagine how different your life would be if you had the intellectual ability to participate one one side or the other in a debate.


Instead, you're as useless as rubber lips on a woodpecker.