Abortion = American Genocide! [Archive]

Foxtrot

June 29th, 2009, 1:37 am

At $1000 per operation, abortion is a twisted, greed-driver perversion of the medical field. There is never any reason to abort because of health reasons, because any fetus with any problems will be removed via C-section, yet this is a common argument. Overpopulation is still a problem in our world today, so what’s the point of terminating pregnancies? There are absolutely no pros.

And while our women are voluntarily killing off future generations, the birth rates in China, Russia and NK are through the roof! You think our enemies are having abortions? Where’s our fighting force? All those potential humans who could work and strengthen our economy/infastructure, but no, it’s a “woman’s choice” to prevent that. Abortion is American genocide!

Mobulis

June 29th, 2009, 2:39 am

Foxtrot

June 29th, 2009, 2:44 am

Thats right its the woman's choice.

if it effects the future of our economy, if it poses any danger to our strength, then every American should have a say in it.

blossom7454

June 29th, 2009, 5:52 am

I hate to admit it I had an abortion almost the same time as my sister 25 yrs ago and I agonized for 2 yrs. over this until I accepted God into my life. Let me tell whoever will listen, it was no picnic they herded me in like cattle and herded me out. I felt awful and guilty although I believe my sister did not. It was one of the worst experiences of my life. I recently spoke with sis about this and she said it was just a blob of flesh. I said oh yeah if our Mother felt that way we wouldnt be here. There proceeded to be silence on the phone. IT IS NOT ok to have an abortion it is Murder. It is killing a human being. It is a commandment thou shalt not kill. And I am just as guilty, but I have forgiveness Thank-you Lord and savior for dying for my sins for God sent his only begotten Son that whosoever shall be saved will have everlasting life. Abortion only kills and women dont have the right to kill just like men dont have the right to kill thank God they cant get pregnant. Amen

angelicmadrigal

June 29th, 2009, 11:00 am

You think our enemies are having abortions?

::blinks:: First off you do realize the US has moderately strong trade relationship with China, and a relatively decent diplomatic relationship? So how does that make China our "enemy" exactly?

Second, China still enforces it's one child policy. So yes women in China are still having abortions, and some of them are forced on them by the government.

Also, your understanding of the term genocide is flawed. Genocide involves DELIBERATELY and with INTENT to destroy a population. I doubt you can argue that a woman that has an abortion does so with this intent. Hell, it can't even be argued that a significant percentage of the population is being destroyed because unborn children are not even COUNTED in the population of a country. So the genocide argument does not fly.

sgdp

June 29th, 2009, 11:07 am

Overpopulation is still a problem in our world today, so what’s the point of terminating pregnancies?

:confused:

If you think we're overpopulated, why are you asking this question?

Not saying we should abort to avoid the problem, but I'm not following your point

Calibabe

June 29th, 2009, 3:28 pm

If anyone here can show me that after conception that said "cells" or "blobs of flesh" don't have the same DNA as you, me and everyone else, then you can have as many abortions as you want.

Until you can prove that beyond any scientific doubt whatsoever, then abortion should not be used.

I have said it before and I will say it again...read the Hippocratic Oath:

"I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:

To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."

I think this is a pretty clear. Every practicing physician that I have ever worked for, in any number of fields, upheld this oath.

Anyone who chooses to ignore it, is doing so only for greed. It has nothing to do with "a woman's choice". It has everything to do with the almighty buck!

Foxtrot

June 29th, 2009, 5:10 pm

::blinks:: First off you do realize the US has moderately strong trade relationship with China, and a relatively decent diplomatic relationship? So how does that make China our "enemy" exactly?

you're right; I admit I was on a bit of a rant. we have a moderate relationship but Russia and China have both said that they would be on NK's side should the borders be crossed. I am also personally concerned about China dominating the world of trade.

Foxtrot

June 29th, 2009, 5:11 pm

If you think we're overpopulated, why are you asking this question? Not saying we should abort to avoid the problem, but I'm not following your point

I'm saying: whats the point of killing these fetuses? if it's not helping keep the population in check, I see absolutely no reason for its legalization.

Foxtrot

June 29th, 2009, 5:12 pm

Mobulis

June 30th, 2009, 1:18 am

if it effects the future of our economy, if it poses any danger to our strength, then every American should have a say in it.

Not even if that were true.

Mobulis

June 30th, 2009, 1:19 am

I'm saying: whats the point of killing these fetuses? if it's not helping keep the population in check, I see absolutely no reason for its legalization. I also oppose it morally.

The reason to keep it legal is that its no one's choice except the womans.

biggles53

June 30th, 2009, 1:36 am

So Foxy, we need to breed more to create more soldiers and factory workers...?

Nice ethics......

The Bos'un

June 30th, 2009, 3:53 am

Abortion is infanticide.....

Pauper66

June 30th, 2009, 4:26 am

Can a doctor be a Christian and take the Hippocratic oath?

Mobulis

June 30th, 2009, 8:15 am

Abortion is infanticide.....

Infanticide is when you kill an infant, since a fetus is obviously NOT an infant sorry not infanticide.

Marleysdaddy

June 30th, 2009, 8:59 am

There is never any reason to abort because of health reasons, because any fetus with any problems will be removed via C-section, yet this is a common argument.

There are two organisms involved with any pregnancy. Many complications put the life of the mother at risk as well...

Please explain to me how an ectopic pregnancy (which threatens the lives of the mother and fetus) can be resolved via caesarean section...

gdoane

June 30th, 2009, 9:52 am

The reason to keep it legal is that its no one's choice except the womans.

Women can't choose to be pregnant all by their lonesome. Every aborted baby had a father who had no "choice" and of course the baby had no "choice" so two out of every three people involved in an abortion have no choice in the matter.

Funny how Daddy is supposed to pay up if the baby is born and gets off the hook if the baby is aborted. Abortion is a better deal for men than it is for women because if the woman has the baby, she gets child support for a couple of decades while if the woman has an abortion, the guy doesn't even have to pay for ride to the doctor.

I think legalized abortion is part of the reason half of all men ordered to pay child support can justify being deadbeat Dads. After all, it's no one's choice except the woman's, right? Why should a man have to pay for a choice that only the woman made?

If having children or not is at the sole discretion of females, then ONLY WOMEN should have to pay for the costs of children and men should be held free from any and all liability concerning children. If women are the sole sayers, then they should be the sole payers too.

Greyclouds

June 30th, 2009, 10:13 am

If anyone here can show me that after conception that said "cells" or "blobs of flesh" don't have the same DNA as you, me and everyone else, then you can have as many abortions as you want.

Until you can prove that beyond any scientific doubt whatsoever, then abortion should not be used.

<snip>

Careful!

There are a couple of things that you should know before you start treading down this argument; it's not as simple as you think it is!

1. The DNA of the Zygote is differentially silenced with respect to the final organism. Gene silencing is a necessary part of embryonic development in Mammals. Some genes are designed to primarily be active in readily dividing cells (such as during embryonic development), if they are turned on or off at the wrong time, you get embryonic death, or tumor formation.

Ergo, gene silencing differentiates the embryo from the final human being. In fact, the major genetic difference between a cancerous tumor and the rest of your cells is the genes that are silenced. If the cancerous cells lack silencing of certain genes, they proliferate and become malignant.

Gene silencing can be engaged through several different chemical mechanisms: (a) methylation of genes (often a permanent method of silencing), or (b) enzymatic binding to target DNA preventing transcription.

2. Many syndromes are caused by differences in genomic content with respect to a "normal" human genome. Trisomy 21 is the presence of a THIRD copy of chromosome 21 in individuals afflicted with Down's Syndrome.

In this case, there is a CLEAR difference in genetic material. I would hope that you'd make an allowance for the victims of this syndrome in your argument...

So, a freshly conceived zygote DOES have different a different genetic profile from its future transitions! This is primarily the reason why we have such a difficult time trying to clone human beings! You have to know which genes need to be silenced at the zygotic stage in order to clone a full-term human being. If you don't? You get a spontaneous abortion prior to the fetal stage of development.

Greyclouds

June 30th, 2009, 10:21 am

Women can't choose to be pregnant all by their lonesome. Every aborted baby had a father who had no "choice" and of course the baby had no "choice" so two out of every three people involved in an abortion have no choice in the matter.

I'm sure that Christians make ONE exception to your above rule ;)

Funny how Daddy is supposed to pay up if the baby is born and gets off the hook if the baby is aborted. Abortion is a better deal for men than it is for women because if the woman has the baby, she gets child support for a couple of decades while if the woman has an abortion, the guy doesn't even have to pay for ride to the doctor.

I think legalized abortion is part of the reason half of all men ordered to pay child support can justify being deadbeat Dads. After all, it's no one's choice except the woman's, right? Why should a man have to pay for a choice that only the woman made?

If having children or not is at the sole discretion of females, then ONLY WOMEN should have to pay for the costs of children and men should be held free from any and all liability concerning children. If women are the sole sayers, then they should be the sole payers too.

Social order would break down far faster under this scenario than I believe that you'd like.

Imagine having hundreds of thousands of unsupported children with single mothers? They'd make a new social class, drain more welfare money out of the state (or starve, if you oppose welfare) and lower the quality of life for everyone else.

That wasn't the point of your argument though, was it?

Mobulis

June 30th, 2009, 10:30 am

Women can't choose to be pregnant all by their lonesome. Every aborted baby had a father who had no "choice" and of course the baby had no "choice" so two out of every three people involved in an abortion have no choice in the matter.

Funny how Daddy is supposed to pay up if the baby is born and gets off the hook if the baby is aborted. Abortion is a better deal for men than it is for women because if the woman has the baby, she gets child support for a couple of decades while if the woman has an abortion, the guy doesn't even have to pay for ride to the doctor.

I think legalized abortion is part of the reason half of all men ordered to pay child support can justify being deadbeat Dads. After all, it's no one's choice except the woman's, right? Why should a man have to pay for a choice that only the woman made?

If having children or not is at the sole discretion of females, then ONLY WOMEN should have to pay for the costs of children and men should be held free from any and all liability concerning children. If women are the sole sayers, then they should be the sole payers too.

Because life's not fair so deal with it.

gdoane

June 30th, 2009, 10:32 am

I'm sure that Christians make ONE exception to your above rule ;)

Christians believe that particular baby had a father too.

Social order would break down far faster under this scenario than I believe that you'd like.

Social order is already broken down. Half of American children will sleep tonight in a home with no father under the same roof. Another half of American children will drop out of school with no diploma. 1 in 5 children will be incarcerated by their 21st birthday.

Social order can't break down. It's already broken.

Imagine having hundreds of thousands of unsupported children with single mothers?

We're already there. Half of all men ordered to pay child support... DON'T. Half of all child support orders are either in arrears or default. We don't have to imagine kids being unsupported. That's done gone and happened already.

They'd make a new social class, drain more welfare money out of the state (or starve, if you oppose welfare) and lower the quality of life for everyone else.

That wasn't the point of your argument though, was it?

They starve anyway because the money from the welfare state is going into the hands of the stupid irresponsible parents who don't even provide for their own kids. Welfare money just supports liquor stores and tobacco shops. It doesn't support kids and doesn't even come close to helping kids any.

Marleysdaddy

June 30th, 2009, 10:54 am

Half of American children will sleep tonight in a home with no father under the same roof. Another half of American children will drop out of school with no diploma.

1) Being picky - Read what you wrote very carefully - you stated that every child in America either lives without a father, or will drop out of high school. ("one half" (50%) plus "another half" (the other 50%) = 100%) That is not a true statement. :razz:

2) I can't find any data which support the claim that the average dropout rate of American students across the country is 50%. Please provide...

Marleysdaddy

June 30th, 2009, 10:55 am

Christians believe that particular baby had a father too.

And not only did he never pay child support, he asked the kid to sacrifice himself :whistle:

;)

Greyclouds

June 30th, 2009, 11:47 am

Christians believe that particular baby had a father too.

A stepfather, and the same spiritual figure that the rest of us have, right ;)

Social order is already broken down. Half of American children will sleep tonight in a home with no father under the same roof. Another half of American children will drop out of school with no diploma. 1 in 5 children will be incarcerated by their 21st birthday.

Social order can't break down. It's already broken.

Actually, it's 1/3 of children. http://www.fatherhood.org/father_factor.asp

Also, the high school dropout rate is FAR FAR lower than you claim! According to the census, it's only 9.4% total! http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/tables/1_Table_1.htm

I did not have the time to browse for the number of juveniles that are incarcerated, but the Dept. of Justice has tons of tables on the prison population here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm

Things could be FAR FAR FAR FAR worse! We might actually reach your projected statistics in the quoted section if we enact your plan!

We're already there. Half of all men ordered to pay child support... DON'T. Half of all child support orders are either in arrears or default. We don't have to imagine kids being unsupported. That's done gone and happened already.

The percentage is again less than you make it out to be. 32% of fathers required to pay child support are dead-beats. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59963,00.html

They starve anyway because the money from the welfare state is going into the hands of the stupid irresponsible parents who don't even provide for their own kids. Welfare money just supports liquor stores and tobacco shops. It doesn't support kids and doesn't even come close to helping kids any.

That is debatable, but unfortunately I just don't have the time right now. Give me a couple of hours to finish up my prep and I'll find some statistics on that.

5thIDSoldier

June 30th, 2009, 12:35 pm

Foxtrot

June 30th, 2009, 12:45 pm

So Foxy, we need to breed more to create more soldiers and factory workers...? Nice ethics......

no Biggles, we need to STOP breeding street trash and gangsters, and instead raise our children to be useful citizens...like a soldier or a factory worker.

Thor

June 30th, 2009, 1:03 pm

One thing I always like to point out to liberals on this issue is this:

You are missing aproxiamtely 41 million people from the tax rolls right now due to abortions.

Or, perhaps we would have 41 million more people on the welfare rolls...

Foxtrot

June 30th, 2009, 1:09 pm

You are missing aproxiamtely 41 million people from the tax rolls right now due to abortions.

that is a very useful statistic! where did you find that; I want some more information for my official report.

Values

June 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm

Also, the high school dropout rate is FAR FAR lower than you claim! According to the census, it's only 9.4% total!

The state of Oregon just posted their numbers. 1 in 3 who started high school 4 years ago did not graduate. http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/06/one_in_three_oregon_students_f.html This is state wide, if you look at Portland schools only it is 1 in 2 (49%) did not graduate. They had originally posted higher numbers until the feds made them post the real ones by counting certain kids they had conveniently left off.
These numbers are a far cry from the 9.4% wouldn't you say? I think a more in depth look at your numbers will enlighten you to the huge problems we face, or should I say turn our blind eye to.

mrclean

June 30th, 2009, 1:27 pm

Or, perhaps we would have 41 million more people on the welfare rolls...

As one poster suggested earlier, 1 in 5 people end up in prison before their 21st birthday.

That's roughly 8 million fewer prisoners thanks to abortions.

And those are just the ones that get caught! Double that number for the ones who don't get caught and the sacrament of abortion has saved us from 16 million criminals.

Greyclouds

June 30th, 2009, 1:31 pm

The state of Oregon just posted their numbers. 1 in 3 who started high school 4 years ago did not graduate. http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/06/one_in_three_oregon_students_f.html This is state wide, if you look at Portland schools only it is 1 in 2 (49%) did not graduate. They had originally posted higher numbers until the feds made them post the real ones by counting certain kids they had conveniently left off.
These numbers are a far cry from the 9.4% wouldn't you say? I think a more in depth look at your numbers will enlighten you to the huge problems we face, or should I say turn our blind eye to.

That's Oregon. The original issue was the nationwide dropout rate.

Sure, it is a tragedy for the State of Oregon, and, naturally, it hurts the dropouts themselves FAR more than anyone else. Everyone should strive for as much education as they need for their future profession; high school diplomas/GED's are the bare MINIMUM for any sort of job!

Marleysdaddy

June 30th, 2009, 1:32 pm

Marleysdaddy

June 30th, 2009, 1:33 pm

That's Oregon. The original issue was the nationwide dropout rate.

Sure, it is a tragedy for the State of Oregon, and, naturally, it hurts the dropouts themselves FAR more than anyone else. Everyone should strive for as much education as they need for their future profession; high school diplomas/GED's are the bare MINIMUM for any sort of job!

Not necessarily...when I moved after graduating college, it took me almost 2 months to find a job. In the meantime, I worked at a job which didn't require literacy, much less a diploma/GED ;)

Foxtrot

June 30th, 2009, 1:34 pm

And those are just the ones that get caught! Double that number for the ones who don't get caught and the sacrament of abortion has saved us from 16 million criminals.

its not just a question of the morals surrounding abortion; its a matter of society's role in child-rearing. if we got rid of abortion and had those extra 16 million, but worked harder to raise them as good citizens, then we wouldn't need to take such extreme measures to prevent their existence.

Greyclouds

June 30th, 2009, 1:35 pm

The state of Oregon just posted their numbers. 1 in 3 who started high school 4 years ago did not graduate. http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/06/one_in_three_oregon_students_f.html This is state wide, if you look at Portland schools only it is 1 in 2 (49%) did not graduate. They had originally posted higher numbers until the feds made them post the real ones by counting certain kids they had conveniently left off.
These numbers are a far cry from the 9.4% wouldn't you say? I think a more in depth look at your numbers will enlighten you to the huge problems we face, or should I say turn our blind eye to.

Another example of why one state does not a nation make:

The rate of single-parent families varies from 18% (Utah) to 44% (Mississippi) in the US, with a TOTAL rate of 32% (Nationwide, 2007).

http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=106

If we just used Mississippi's data, we'd over-represent the actual nationwide statistic by 12% over the actual percentage.

Greyclouds

June 30th, 2009, 1:36 pm

Not necessarily...when I moved after graduating college, it took me almost 2 months to find a job. In the meantime, I worked at a job which didn't require literacy, much less a diploma/GED ;)

True, but I'm sure it did not pay a sustainable wage, no? :)

Foxtrot

June 30th, 2009, 1:42 pm

Greyclouds

June 30th, 2009, 2:16 pm

heres something to ask yourselves: we're sitting here discussing the pros and cons, how horrible or how great it would be if abortion was banned, but

what did we have before abortion? before it was legalized, what were the conditions?

Prior to Roe V. Wade in the US? A "Quickened" fetal abortion carried severe penalties up until Maine decided that even the embryo was protected under law (this was in 1840). http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/LIFBFROE.TXT Only 19 out of the 50 states, just prior to Roe V. Wade, actually allowed an abortion if the mother's life was in danger. That means that in the remaining 31 states, even if the fetus/embryo threatened the mother's life, the mother would be forced to die or face felony charges. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_US_abortion_laws_pre-1973.svg

In the Ancient Civilizations? Abortions were actually common and our first recorded mention of abortion is in 1500 BC on Egyptian papyrus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

Abortion is mentioned in the Bible, albeit, indirectly or as a cause for testing whether a woman is guilty or not. Leviticus 26 does not give an estimate of the worth of a child prior to one month AFTER BIRTH! Numbers 3:15-16 continues this trend. Numbers 5:27-28 gives a means by which a husband can tell if his wife had been faithful or not, by having her drink a "bitter water" (most likely an abortifactant) and seeing if the fetus survives. If it does not? The wife was guilty of infidelity and will be cursed.

Foxtrot

June 30th, 2009, 2:25 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_US_abortion_laws_pre-1973.svg[/url] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

you're using wikipeida as a source?

my point was that abortion hasn't solved anything; social conditions haven't been improved at all since Roe vs. Wade. in fact, family values and family life were much better in the 50's and 60's, not so many broken homes.

Greyclouds

June 30th, 2009, 2:37 pm

you're using wikipeida as a source?

Quick and easy reference for message board posts. If I were writing a thesis or essay? I wouldn't touch Wikipedia. For message boards, though? It's a great springboard of information.

my point was that abortion hasn't solved anything; social conditions haven't been improved at all since Roe vs. Wade. in fact, family values and family life were much better in the 50's and 60's, not so many broken homes.

No, the PERCEPTION of family life was better in the 50's, and that was primarily due to the economic expansion of the US post-WWII.

Ask an African-American family if their family would be better off in the 50's, and... well... you'd find that the 50's really was a gilded age.

Marleysdaddy

June 30th, 2009, 2:43 pm

True, but I'm sure it did not pay a sustainable wage, no? :)

Define sustainable :)

It was unloading shipping containers of crap from China and arranging it on pallets.

It paid fairly well (started at $8.75, I think), but I didn't go to college for 8 years to do a job that a trained gorilla could do.

Greyclouds

June 30th, 2009, 2:45 pm

Define sustainable :)

It was unloading shipping containers of crap from China and arranging it on pallets.

It paid fairly well (started at $8.75, I think), but I didn't go to college for 8 years to do a job that a trained gorilla could do.

Not too bad! I worked as a security guard for a major pharmaceutical company during the summers while I was at college and I earned $9/hr!

That job required at least a GED, training courses and certification (as an unarmed guard for the state of NJ).

By comparison, that job paid very very well!

Foxtrot

June 30th, 2009, 2:48 pm

No, the PERCEPTION of family life was better in the 50's, and that was primarily due to the economic expansion of the US post-WWII.

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/divorce.html

statistics will show the the divorce rate was far lower back then, and what makes you think economic expansion effects people's perception of family life?

Ask an African-American family if their family would be better off in the 50's, and... well... you'd find that the 50's really was a gilded age.

civil rights is an entirely different subject.

Marleysdaddy

June 30th, 2009, 3:55 pm

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/divorce.html

statistics will show the the divorce rate was far lower back then, and what makes you think economic expansion effects people's perception of family life?

Making things like refrigerators and washing machines affordable for the vast majority of Americans certainly affected family life. Chores took less time, daily trips to the grocer or market were no longer required, etc.

Values

June 30th, 2009, 8:08 pm

Another example of why one state does not a nation make:

The rate of single-parent families varies from 18% (Utah) to 44% (Mississippi) in the US, with a TOTAL rate of 32% (Nationwide, 2007).

http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=106

If we just used Mississippi's data, we'd over-represent the actual nationwide statistic by 12% over the actual percentage.

The story covered up a coverup as well as the low numbers.
How many other states are in the same boat?
Hint: look at democratic run states.

Foxtrot

June 30th, 2009, 8:28 pm

Another example of why one state does not a nation make:

The rate of single-parent families varies from 18% (Utah) to 44% (Mississippi) in the US, with a TOTAL rate of 32% (Nationwide, 2007).

http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=106

If we just used Mississippi's data, we'd over-represent the actual nationwide statistic by 12% over the actual percentage.

okay, we get it that each state has its own individual statistics and that some have higher dropout/divorce rates than others.

but when you add them together, the national average is still disturbingly high.

thinkingabovemypaygrade

June 30th, 2009, 10:50 pm

We were sold the "overpopulation" idea for maybe half a century...so the US is not growing but FORTUNATELY the US is NOT declining because of immigration. We are just replacing ourselves...

But some European countries are DECLINING. I.e. the native population is dying out---but some of their immigrants are having LOTS OF KIDS!!! If the immigrants have a vastly DIFFERENT vision for their host country---in 30-50 years that country might be VASTLY transformed!

(PS - Every crisis pregnancy has a father...If any fertile male reading this is engaging in casual sex, he may well be the unknown half of a crisis pregnancy. He may have one or more aborted kids. He may well have one or more unknown kids.

Men---it's not all the woman's problem! Help raisethe kids you created!)
To young couples---Consider having two or MORE kids! Adopt kids from local foster care! (Some states give you a subsidy check so you can afford this option.)

thinkingabovemypaygrade

June 30th, 2009, 10:55 pm

I agree Wikipedia is an UNEVEN source...As abortion is a HOT topic, Wikipedia will tend to reflect the views of the most powerful editors, not necessarily the most scholarly viewpoints.

Foxtrot

July 1st, 2009, 12:01 am

To young couples---Consider having two or MORE kids! Adopt kids from local foster care! (Some states give you a subsidy check so you can afford this option.)

yeah I plan on having only 2 kids, maybe 3. ideally, one boy and one girl. I would adopt if I wanted another.

gdoane

July 1st, 2009, 7:28 am

1) Being picky - Read what you wrote very carefully - you stated that every child in America either lives without a father, or will drop out of high school. ("one half" (50%) plus "another half" (the other 50%) = 100%) That is not a true statement. :razz:

It's entirely possible for one person to belong to two groups. For example, I am a householder and an American. Add up Americans and then add up households and you'll have 100% plus 30%. People are versatile enough to belong to more than one simple grouping.

2) I can't find any data which support the claim that the average dropout rate of American students across the country is 50%. Please provide...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344190,00.html

"The report, issued by America's Promise Alliance, found that about half of the students served by public school systems in the nation's largest cities receive diplomas. Students in suburban and rural public high schools were more likely to graduate than their counterparts in urban public high schools, the researchers said."

Even if it weren't 50%, the point stands. It's TOO HIGH. What would be your acceptable percentage? 40%? 30%? Do you even have an acceptable dropout rate? HALF is bad. ONE IN TEN is bad. It's ALL BAD. So while you may think you're making a point with "oh, it's not HALF" (and you're not, it IS half) you're failing to give what you think is an acceptable dropout rate.

What is your acceptable dropout rate? If you don't buy "No Child Left Behind" then how many children are you willing to leave behind? 5%? 20%?

I don't blame the schools. Really, I don't blame the teachers or the system at all because they cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The problem is lousy parents who don't support schooling and have no place in the home well-lit and quiet where the student can study and have a learning place.

It's not lousy schools, it's lousy parents who either cannot or do not contribute and support the education of their own child because they either don't speak English or lack education themselves. No politician is ever going to have the intestinal fortitude to say that bad parents are making for bad students because that's politically incorrect as it gets, but it's the truth and hiding that truth perpetuates the problem indefinitely.

Marleysdaddy

July 1st, 2009, 9:05 am

It's entirely possible for one person to belong to two groups. For example, I am a householder and an American. Add up Americans and then add up households and you'll have 100% plus 30%. People are versatile enough to belong to more than one simple grouping.

Yes, but your statement claimed that everyone fell into one of those two groups (neither I nor you initially said anything about belonging to both groups).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344190,00.html

"The report, issued by America's Promise Alliance, found that about half of the students served by public school systems in the nation's largest cities receive diplomas. Students in suburban and rural public high schools were more likely to graduate than their counterparts in urban public high schools, the researchers said."

Even if it weren't 50%, the point stands.
Even if it weren't 50%? It isn't...The article you just provided doesn't support that claim. "about half of the students served by public school systems in the nation's largest cities receive diplomas"...so that's about 50% graduation rate in this country's largest cities, but the article clearly states that the suburban and rural areas have higher than 50% graduation rates, so the national average is NOT 50%.

I don't blame the schools. Really, I don't blame the teachers or the system at all because they cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The problem is lousy parents who don't support schooling and have no place in the home well-lit and quiet where the student can study and have a learning place. I agree to an extent, but the lion's share of the fault lies with the kids themselves, at least once they are in High School.

Values

July 1st, 2009, 10:44 am

I agree to an extent, but the lion's share of the fault lies with the kids themselves, at least once they are in High School.

At what age do you think parents should acquiesce their parenting?
High school is where it needed most to finish the job.

Vaard

July 1st, 2009, 10:46 am

well, genocides involve the reduction of a population.......

since the population of america is increasing, abortion cant be considered genocide........

5thIDSoldier

July 1st, 2009, 10:53 am

Abortion is infanticide.....

Truly.

5thIDSoldier

July 1st, 2009, 10:57 am

Or, perhaps we would have 41 million more people on the welfare rolls...

Only under Obama's socialist economy.......

5thIDSoldier

July 1st, 2009, 11:01 am

that is a very useful statistic! where did you find that; I want some more information for my official report.

There are approximately 1.3 million abortions performed each year in the USA. Abortion has been "legal" for 36 years now.

http://www.abort73.com/?/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

Values

July 1st, 2009, 11:04 am

well, genocides involve the reduction of a population.......

since the population of america is increasing, abortion cant be considered genocide........

?????????
Where ever did you get this idea?

Marleysdaddy

July 1st, 2009, 11:06 am

At what age do you think parents should acquiesce their parenting?
High school is where it needed most to finish the job.

Never, but High School-aged children need to be responsible for their futures.
Having crummy parents that don't encourage you to work hard in school is not a justification for dropping out of High School.

Vaard

July 1st, 2009, 11:11 am

?????????
Where ever did you get this idea?

get which idea?

the idea that the population of america is increasing (us census) or the definition of the word genocide (a dictionary)?

SaintVegas

July 1st, 2009, 11:16 am

Thats right its the woman's choice.

But it isn't. What gives a woman the right to kill?

Values

July 1st, 2009, 4:15 pm

get which idea?

the idea that the population of america is increasing (us census) or the definition of the word genocide (a dictionary)?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genocide:
gen⋅o⋅cide /ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA
Use genocide in a Sentence
–noun the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group

Not much here on lowering the population being needed to call it genocide.

Vaard

July 1st, 2009, 6:01 pm

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genocide:
gen⋅o⋅cide /ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA
Use genocide in a Sentence
–noun the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group

Not much here on lowering the population being needed to call it genocide.

well, extermination would imply a decrease in population of national, racial, political, or cultural group, none of which is happening thru abortion........

Foxtrot

July 1st, 2009, 6:47 pm

since the population of america is increasing, abortion cant be considered genocide........

well the WRONG people are increasing, so I consider abortion genocide against law-abiding, hard-working, true Americans. you know, the kind envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

Vaard

July 1st, 2009, 7:19 pm

well the WRONG people are increasing, so I consider abortion genocide against law-abiding, hard-working, true Americans. you know, the kind envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

what do you mean by the "wrong people"?

Foxtrot

July 1st, 2009, 7:27 pm

what do you mean by the "wrong people"?

criminals, gangsters, drug dealers, and all the other low-lifes who uproot our American traditons and corrupt young minds.

all my potential peers are being aborted, but why? if anyone was to be terminated, it should be them.

Mobulis

July 1st, 2009, 7:35 pm

But it isn't. What gives a woman the right to kill?

Its her body.

Foxtrot

July 1st, 2009, 7:39 pm

Its her body.

but the father also has a say; he is the one who created the fetus.

Foxtrot

July 1st, 2009, 7:55 pm

speaking of abortion, it is completely ridiculous for people to blame Bill O'Reilly when that doctor got shot. he had been criticizing the doctor for years but never advocated violence.

Values

July 1st, 2009, 11:09 pm

Its her body.

No it isn't, otherwise SHE would be dead, not the baby.

biggles53

July 1st, 2009, 11:26 pm

criminals, gangsters, drug dealers, and all the other low-lifes who uproot our American traditons and corrupt young minds.

all my potential peers are being aborted, but why? if anyone was to be terminated, it should be them.

So, you ARE in favour of abortion, provided we can come up with a means of identifying potential Hitlers and Stalins in utero....?

Oh boy.........:rolleyes:

Mobulis

July 1st, 2009, 11:29 pm

No it isn't, otherwise SHE would be dead, not the baby.

The fetus gestates INSIDE the womans body and if she doesn't want it in her she doesn't have to keep it there.

Vaard

July 1st, 2009, 11:41 pm

but the father also has a say; he is the one who created the fetus.

then stick the baby in him and let him carry it to term.......

Foxtrot

July 2nd, 2009, 3:32 am

So, you ARE in favour of abortion, provided we can come up with a means of identifying potential Hitlers and Stalins in utero....?

I am opposed to abortion, but as I said before: if anyone HAD to be aborted, I would rather have it be future criminals, drug dealers...all the people I mentioned in the last post.

Foxtrot

July 2nd, 2009, 3:33 am

then stick the baby in him and let him carry it to term.......

that is a biologic impossibility...

Mobulis

July 2nd, 2009, 7:32 am

I am opposed to abortion, but as I said before: if anyone HAD to be aborted, I would rather have it be future criminals, drug dealers...all the people I mentioned in the last post.

How can you tell?

mrclean

July 2nd, 2009, 8:23 am

that is a biologic impossibility...

Then he's got no say in the matter.

5thIDSoldier

July 2nd, 2009, 10:45 am

Just because something is LEGAL doesn't make it RIGHT.

Values

July 2nd, 2009, 12:19 pm

The fetus gestates INSIDE the womans body and if she doesn't want it in her she doesn't have to keep it there.

Legally true right now, morally wrong forever.

Greyclouds

July 2nd, 2009, 12:48 pm

Legally true right now, morally wrong forever.

It used to be acceptable in Ancient Jewish society (see Leviticus/Numbers). Also, abortions prior to the "Quickening" were not punished in the British Common Law that the American British Colonies adopted.

Mobulis

July 2nd, 2009, 12:51 pm

Legally true right now, morally wrong forever.

Its not morally wrong either.

5thIDSoldier

July 2nd, 2009, 12:52 pm

It used to be acceptable in Ancient Jewish society (see Leviticus/Numbers).

Textual references, please?

I can't wait to see this.........

Greyclouds

July 2nd, 2009, 12:58 pm

Textual references, please?

I can't wait to see this.........

From the Talmud and OT:

Abortion-related passages in the Hebrew Scriptures & Talmud:

The Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 69b states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born.

"Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nefesh hu--it is not a person.' The Talmud contains the expression 'ubar yerech imo--the fetus is as the thigh of its mother,' i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body." 1 This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage, which kills the fetus If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's husband. If the woman dies, then the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.

There are two additional passages in the Talmud which shed some light on the Jewish belief about abortion. They imply that the fetus is considered part of the mother, and not a separate entity:
bullet

One section states that if a man purchases a cow that is found to be pregnant, then he is the owner both of the cow and the fetus.
bullet

Another section states that if a pregnant woman converts to Judaism, that her conversion applies also to her fetus.

From: http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm

A collection of passages from the Old Testament that, at worst, give vague qualifications for abortions to be performed:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

5thIDSoldier

July 2nd, 2009, 1:22 pm

Thats all a commentators opinion of what he thinks the scripture says. Where does the Bible say it is permissible to kill a baby?

Greyclouds

July 2nd, 2009, 1:33 pm

Thats all a commentators opinion of what he thinks the scripture says. Where does the Bible say it is permissible to kill a baby?

It's from the Babylonian Talmud. While I would defer to the scholarship of our Jewish Honored Guests in this matter, it seems clear that the worth of an embryo is that of "water" and that a fetus is "subhuman prior to birth."

As for what the scripture says about killing infants:

Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

Numbers 5:21-31 Summary: A woman who's accused of infidelity must drink "bitter water" (possibly an abortifactent), and if her fetus dies, then she was guilty of infidelity. If not? She's righteous.

Deuteronomy 2:33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.
2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:

Granted, only God can command you to kill infants in this regard, but he has commanded it.

Mobulis

July 2nd, 2009, 1:39 pm

Thats all a commentators opinion of what he thinks the scripture says. Where does the Bible say it is permissible to kill a baby?

Where does it say its immoral?

SaintVegas

July 2nd, 2009, 5:15 pm

Where does it say its immoral?

Where does it say that it is immoral to kill a baby?

Hmmmm. The whole "Thou shalt not kill" bit could have something to do with it.

Foxtrot

July 2nd, 2009, 6:07 pm

How can you tell?

easy: all the unwed teenage mothers living in the ghetto, all the ghetto moms who don't have enough money to support another one [most of their children will end up in a life of crime], all the moms on drugs during pregnancy, ect.

Foxtrot

July 2nd, 2009, 6:09 pm

Just because something is LEGAL doesn't make it RIGHT.

yeah man, because like Mr Luther King Jr once said "never forget that everything Hitler did was legal".

The Bos'un

July 2nd, 2009, 6:12 pm

The Bos'un

July 2nd, 2009, 6:13 pm

;) thanks...

The Bos'un

July 2nd, 2009, 6:15 pm

Where does it say it is?

The Bos'un

July 2nd, 2009, 6:16 pm

(or Muhammad)

Mobulis

July 3rd, 2009, 1:36 am

Where does it say that it is immoral to kill a baby?

Hmmmm. The whole "Thou shalt not kill" bit could have something to do with it.

Then I guess our solders are in a bit of trouble.

Foxtrot

July 3rd, 2009, 2:05 am

Then I guess our solders are in a bit of trouble.

that's if you interperet the Bible to the extreme, with no flexibility.

Mobulis

July 3rd, 2009, 3:28 am

that's if you interperet the Bible to the extreme, with no flexibility.

Which is what absolute morality thinking does.

Foxtrot

July 4th, 2009, 4:32 am

Which is what absolute morality thinking does.

but not all of us supporters (or all Christians) practice moral absolutism; people who pick one extreme or the other, that is a very small group. most of us find middle ground, such as in the Bible where not exactly what is said might be true. because of linguistics, many things are probable to have changed and people who read the Bible must be careful of that.

example: some OT texts say a Jewish girl shall not marry and Egyptian, but that is not a ban on interracial marriage. it is a ban on marriage between the believers (at the time Jewish people were the only ones) and pagans (the ancient Egyptians are one group of pagans).

Plasmaball

July 4th, 2009, 6:50 am

if it effects the future of our economy, if it poses any danger to our strength, then every American should have a say in it.

therefore let me take it a step further and should i have control over what you do on a day to day basis?

I am willing to play this game that way, if you really feel you have the right over a woman's body.

To loose control over ones body is basically to loose and ounce of freedom one has left.

Values

July 4th, 2009, 11:50 am

Then I guess our solders are in a bit of trouble.

Wrong use of the word in the Bible.
It actually says "murder"
Are you saying our soldiers are murderers?
If so, then we can start a whole new thread on that one.

Greyclouds

July 4th, 2009, 12:15 pm

Maybe you think that a "fetus" or late term "fetus" being born is not an infant, but I do. Have you ever seen a picture or video of a baby inside the womb, they look like infants to me. 10 fingers, 10 toes, human looking, at some point sucking thumb, making faces, etc.

Sadly, visual equivalence is a poor metric by which to base ethical/moral objections.

Take, for example, the prevalence of anencephalic births. Looks human, but entirely incapable of any conscious thoughts.

Sorry, but you and the rest of the abortionist supporters are wrong. (not sure if you are an abortionist supporter on not, so please do not be offended if you are not and only playing devils advocate, M)

I support freedom of choice in the following circumstances:

1. Abortion, at will, prior to the 6th week of gestation. After that week, such abortions should not be granted.
2. Risk of death/injury to the mother regardless of gestational age.
3. Rape/incest.
4. Later-term fatal fetal anomalies (such as calcification of key organs, anencephaly, etc).

Mobulis

July 4th, 2009, 1:52 pm

Wrong use of the word in the Bible.
It actually says "murder"
Are you saying our soldiers are murderers?
If so, then we can start a whole new thread on that one.

No there's a difference between kill and murder, that being murder is when someone kills against the law. Which is why abortion is not murder, its not against the law.

Foxtrot

July 4th, 2009, 5:57 pm

No there's a difference between kill and murder, that being murder is when someone kills against the law. Which is why abortion is not murder, its not against the law.

so if it became illegal again, you would consider it murder?

Mobulis

July 4th, 2009, 11:59 pm

so if it became illegal again, you would consider it murder?

Since killing it would be against the law yes.

Foxtrot

July 5th, 2009, 2:27 am

Since killing it would be against the law yes.

let me get this straight: whatever the law is, that becomes your morals? you have no moral/personal objection to any laws? you base your beliefs on legislation?

Mobulis

July 5th, 2009, 6:19 am

let me get this straight: whatever the law is, that becomes your morals? you have no moral/personal objection to any laws? you base your beliefs on legislation?

You asked about murder and its definition not my personal opinion about abortion.

gdoane

July 5th, 2009, 10:01 am

It's funny how only Americans seem to be at odds with this issue to the extent that they are - and it's the men that are the loudest (ofcourse)... In Europe, you can get a pill to abort, making abortion much more safe.

You're using STINKING EUROPE as a measure of human rights? EUROPE, who gave the world the Spanish Inquisition, the murderous Crusades, the genocidal NAZIS and the bloodiest conquerors in history? THAT'S your standard for human rights?

We don't do things like Europe. We're better than stinking Eurotrash.

A blastocyst is not a beating heart that makes faces... Who on this planet can actually remember being a fetus? If you can point to one single person who can remember life inside the womb and can prove those memories by describing something that they heard outside the womb that is verifyable by the mother and others around them, then you have an argument that a fetus is a living child.

It can't be anything else. What else do you think a fetus can turn into? A tree? A skunk maybe?

If I climbed up to an eagles nest and broke the eggs in that nest, I'd be violating the Endangered Species Act. If I made the argument that the eggs weren't really eagles yet I'd be laughed out of court.

DDT, a highly effective insecticide and the main reason that the mosquitoes which spread malaria are extinct in the USA was banned in 1972. Why? Because it caused eggshell thinning in several bird species, resulting in serious declines in eagles, pelicans, falcons and osprey populations.

In other words, DDT was banned because it caused abortions.

Aborting animals = bad.
Aborting humans = good.

Liberalism isn't real big on logic.

When the child is living and breathing and thinking on it's own, it's a living child with a right to life. Before that, it is a part of the mother's body and she has a right to her body.

Nope, it's illegal to own a human body in the USA. Thirteenth Amendment bans slavery so nobody can own nobody. If you can't sell it then it's not yours and you can't sell your body. Not even on e-Bay.

In Europe, if your fetus tests positive for Down's syndrome, it is aborted. Many Christian cultures used to (up to very recently) drown premature births as they were thought to grow up to be weak as adults.

In Europe, they eat snails. I don't want to do everything that Europeans do.

There is nothing in the bible that says a fetus has rights over it's mother.

Nothing in the bible covers genocide either but it's pretty well accepted that it's wrong.

Besides, this is a woman's issue and until there are enough members of congress who understand, first hand, the risks, pains, disfigurement and physical torture of childbirth, there should be no laws governing this issue. It is between the mother and her creator.

Fathers are held liable after the child is born. That gives them some say about what happens before the child is born too. Women don't get pregnant by their lonesome selves.

Values

July 5th, 2009, 12:01 pm

Since killing it would be against the law yes.

If it were against the law for blacks to drink from white's only fountains again, what would you do?
Morals supecede laws.

Values

July 5th, 2009, 12:09 pm

No there's a difference between kill and murder, that being murder is when someone kills against the law. Which is why abortion is not murder, its not against the law.

Of course there is a difference between murder and kill. Law does not always get things straight, in fact it is often morally wrong.

Mobulis

July 5th, 2009, 3:16 pm

If it were against the law for blacks to drink from white's only fountains again, what would you do?
Morals supecede laws.

I would do what I could to have the law changed.

Foxtrot

July 5th, 2009, 5:47 pm

what does everybody think about the age issues surrounding abortion? it varies by state: in some you need parental consent, in others its confidential. in some you must be over 18, in other you can be any age.

Kenga

July 6th, 2009, 8:29 am

You're using STINKING EUROPE as a measure of human rights? EUROPE, who gave the world the Spanish Inquisition, the murderous Crusades, the genocidal NAZIS and the bloodiest conquerors in history? THAT'S your standard for human rights?

We don't do things like Europe. We're better than stinking Eurotrash.

Calm your temper a bit.
I may be out of place, but calling large swathes of the world's population "Eurotrash" sounds like an ad hominem attack, which isn't supposed to be done on these boards if you follow the rules you enforce. Holding all of Europe responsible for the Third Reich is completely unfair, and I think you know this. Also, you seem to have Godwin'd the thread by invoking Nazis in which the analogy wasn't appropriate.
Another thing, we've only had about 400 years on this continent, and thus haven't managed to amass quite the history of Europe; but we have our own skeletons in our closet (See Salem, McCarthyism, Native Americans, Japanese internment, Alien & Sedition acts, slavery, etc.). I am going to coin a phrase here: "The American Flag is NOT a magic suit of armor." Loving your country is not an excuse to do anything. Patriotism is not a quantity that can be measured by whether they're wearing a $2 flag pin from China, or any other such Litmus test. Partiotism is in the person, and for other people to attempt to quantify someone else's patriotism is at best self-delusion, and is at worst self-glorification. You cannot justify any action solely for "love of your country", because there were lynch mobs in the south who would justify their actions by saying "The country is a better place without those [blank]s."

Liberalism isn't real big on logic.Oh, I see!
You see, for a second I thought you were insulting the person directly, but then I saw that you switched from attacking the person with ad hominem attacks to attacking what you believe are their VALUES with ad hominem attacks.
In all seriousness, the merits of "liberalism" are not what is up for discussion. The title of the thread is provocative in an attempt to get people to read it, but from what I've gathered, it's a retread of the ol' "Abortion is murder; now come into this thread, people who disagree, so we're not preaching to the choir." The thread is not entitled "Liberals: Stupid or Misguided", so saying something to that order is really out of place, ESPECIALLY since you don't know whether this person is a "liberal" or not, so to characterize their viewpoint into one collective cluster for easier attack is completely unfair, and not very diplomatic for a moderator. Your job is to make sure that threads DON'T take that nasty turn for the worse and just become poo-flinging contests; please remember that you are bound by the same rules you enforce. So please, cool your head a bit and remember that the other side of the abortion debate is not motivated by an unquenchable desire to kill babies, but have legitimate concerns; this issue is not a black and white issue unless the person makes it out to be, so please don't pull this thread into a Good vs. Evil debate, because it isn't as clear-cut as that.

There was my $.02.