(08-13-2015 12:48 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 09:49 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Whats really funny here Mach is that my desire to be pro life stems from a believe in the fundamental rights of an individual. I feel no need to up and justify it with analogies of steak and famine.

You seem to be rooting yourself in the "It's better for jobs, prosperity, and the like". IOW you are putting society over the individual and I am doing the opposite. One of us sounds like a eugenicists and the other does not..

Come on Bull. We know that isn't true. We aren't stupid. It is about religion for you and a large number that post here.

Funny, no one brought up religion until.....you.

(08-13-2015 12:36 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 11:23 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 11:19 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 10:56 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  1 in 2 black babies are aborted (472 abortions to every 1,000 live birth if we want to get technical). That isn't a theory, that is a fact. More black babies were aborted in NYC last year than were born. Yes, this fact may hurt feelings, but it's a fact nonetheless.

No one is saying black women are stupid. But to deny that there is a promiscuity problem in that community is denying the truth (please don't make me cite the STD rates). Denying the fact that Planned Degeneracy plants their centers in the middle of low-income areas is also denying the truth. Oh I know, it's because they somehow cannot get access to birth control....what a crock of bull****. It's remarkably easy to obtain.

I said the "left hates these statistics" because they paint a picture they don't want to see. They'd rather bury their heads in the sand and act like it isn't happening.

"The left" suppresses this voting bloc every year. They perpetuate them as a permanent underclass. The leftist politicians keep making empty promises and pass ridiculously stupid and ineffective legislation like "The Great Society." These promises, combined with vilifying the right as racists and lacking empathy, keeps this bloc voting Democrat every year. Keeping them on the government plantation. The party you see as infallibly benevolent is in reality a cunning, manipulative, power-hungry party who is hell bent on maintaining their specific voting blocs at any cost. And yes that includes keeping the black folks dependent.

I'n not denying any of those facts. The claim made by ER and affirmed by you is that "The left uses abortion for population control on blacks."

I'd really like to know how...and more importantly...why?

A better way to put it would be "the left condones the population control that abortion provides the black community."

Why? I don't know. The reasons are probably more malevolent than we realize. I mean....we need not look further than Planned Degeneracy's founder to get a bit of insight into that.

How are they forcing black women to have abortions?

They aren't. Who even said that?

Well...then gee. Why did you say "yes" to "The left uses abortion for population control on blacks." then?

(08-13-2015 12:48 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 09:49 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Whats really funny here Mach is that my desire to be pro life stems from a believe in the fundamental rights of an individual. I feel no need to up and justify it with analogies of steak and famine.

You seem to be rooting yourself in the "It's better for jobs, prosperity, and the like". IOW you are putting society over the individual and I am doing the opposite. One of us sounds like a eugenicists and the other does not..

Come on Bull. We know that isn't true. We aren't stupid. It is about religion for you and a large number that post here.

Why can't the individual>society be a legitimate perspective even if it is driven by religious teaching (which can be a totally separate debate)?

(08-13-2015 12:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 12:36 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 11:23 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 11:19 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I'n not denying any of those facts. The claim made by ER and affirmed by you is that "The left uses abortion for population control on blacks."

I'd really like to know how...and more importantly...why?

A better way to put it would be "the left condones the population control that abortion provides the black community."

Why? I don't know. The reasons are probably more malevolent than we realize. I mean....we need not look further than Planned Degeneracy's founder to get a bit of insight into that.

How are they forcing black women to have abortions?

They aren't. Who even said that?

Well...then gee. Why did you say "yes" to "The left uses abortion for population control on blacks." then?

I consider Planned Degeneracy a part of the left, so it holds some water.

(08-13-2015 12:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 11:56 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 11:19 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I'n not denying any of those facts. The claim made by ER and affirmed by you is that "The left uses abortion for population control on blacks."

I'd really like to know how...and more importantly...why? I don't seem to see an outcry from black women that their fetuses are being taken against their will.

Founded by a woman who wanted to keep black populations down
Plants their centers in heavily minority areas
Has led to more black babies being aborted than born in the nations largest city

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck...

That's akin to saying that all these black women are just ignorant automatons mindlessly getting abortions.

If not, please explain how this all works...how something attributed to a birth control advocate nearly 100 years ago...leads to a systematic process of getting black women to have abortions?

no its not.. your race card is overdrawn..

(08-13-2015 12:48 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 09:49 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Whats really funny here Mach is that my desire to be pro life stems from a believe in the fundamental rights of an individual. I feel no need to up and justify it with analogies of steak and famine.

You seem to be rooting yourself in the "It's better for jobs, prosperity, and the like". IOW you are putting society over the individual and I am doing the opposite. One of us sounds like a eugenicists and the other does not..

Come on Bull. We know that isn't true. We aren't stupid. It is about religion for you and a large number that post here.

Rob's you're such a fool..

Where I draw my conclusion that its a life in the womb does not in any way take away from the fact that my opposition to Abortion is based on its status and rights as a human life the same as me.

If my I drew all my positions from my religion I would want laws against adultery and fornication. Fact is while I beleive those two practices are damaging and sinful I don't think a civil law is appropriate.

I happen to know pro life atheist.

(08-13-2015 12:59 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 12:48 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 09:49 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Whats really funny here Mach is that my desire to be pro life stems from a believe in the fundamental rights of an individual. I feel no need to up and justify it with analogies of steak and famine.

You seem to be rooting yourself in the "It's better for jobs, prosperity, and the like". IOW you are putting society over the individual and I am doing the opposite. One of us sounds like a eugenicists and the other does not..

Come on Bull. We know that isn't true. We aren't stupid. It is about religion for you and a large number that post here.

Rob's you're such a fool..

Where I draw my conclusion that its a life in the womb does not in any way take away from the fact that my opposition to Abortion is based on its status and rights as a human life the same as me.

I happen to know pro life atheist.

I'm non religious but personally opposed to abortion after twenty weeks. I'm also just fine with leaving laws the way they are and focusing on more important issues that don't involve the government getting involved in personal medical decisions.

Obviously, the babies in utero cannot speak for themselves. However, what would they prefer if you would ask people who were unplanned pregnancies born into broken homes, adopted out or put into the foster care system the question on whether you would rather have been born or killed in utero? I think virtually everyone conceived in during an inconvenient time or under traumatic circumstances would be more than happy to roll the dice and HOPE that they end up with parents that would love them - even if the chances are 50/50 that they would end up with dysfunctional parents or foster parents. That's the fundamental flaw in Mach's views on abortion. All he can think about is how a pregnancy affects those around him and doesn't even consider the needs of the most important person in the discussion - the baby itself.

(08-13-2015 01:21 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Obviously, the babies in utero cannot speak for themselves. However, what would they prefer if you would ask people who were unplanned pregnancies born into broken homes, adopted out or put into the foster care system the question on whether you would rather have been born or killed in utero? I think virtually everyone conceived in during an inconvenient time or under traumatic circumstances would be more than happy to roll the dice and HOPE that they end up with parents that would love them - even if the chances are 50/50 that they would end up with dysfunctional parents or foster parents. That's the fundamental flaw in Mach's views on abortion. All he can think about is how a pregnancy affects those around him and doesn't even consider the needs of the most important person in the discussion - the baby itself.

Domestic adoption needs to be vastly restructured to make it more streamlined and less expensive. I can tell you that having my 2 children in the hospital was cheaper than most domestic adoptions. It's ridiculous how many hoops have to be jumped through to adopt kids from the US.

(08-13-2015 01:44 PM)dfarr Wrote:  It's ridiculous how many hoops have to be jumped through to adopt kids from the US.

Agreed. Why anyone is fighting against letting responsible and loving families of all kinds adopt kids that need homes is mind boggling.

(08-13-2015 01:21 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Obviously, the babies in utero cannot speak for themselves. However, what would they prefer if you would ask people who were unplanned pregnancies born into broken homes, adopted out or put into the foster care system the question on whether you would rather have been born or killed in utero? I think virtually everyone conceived in during an inconvenient time or under traumatic circumstances would be more than happy to roll the dice and HOPE that they end up with parents that would love them - even if the chances are 50/50 that they would end up with dysfunctional parents or foster parents. That's the fundamental flaw in Mach's views on abortion. All he can think about is how a pregnancy affects those around him and doesn't even consider the needs of the most important person in the discussion - the baby itself.

How is a small cluster of cells more important than the mother?

(08-13-2015 12:50 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 12:48 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 09:49 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Whats really funny here Mach is that my desire to be pro life stems from a believe in the fundamental rights of an individual. I feel no need to up and justify it with analogies of steak and famine.

You seem to be rooting yourself in the "It's better for jobs, prosperity, and the like". IOW you are putting society over the individual and I am doing the opposite. One of us sounds like a eugenicists and the other does not..

Come on Bull. We know that isn't true. We aren't stupid. It is about religion for you and a large number that post here.

Funny, no one brought up religion until.....you.

Well, it certainly isn't about individual rights because he is trying to take those away from a woman. So what does that leave us as being the real motivation for his beliefs? Religion.

(08-13-2015 01:02 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 12:59 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 12:48 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 09:49 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Whats really funny here Mach is that my desire to be pro life stems from a believe in the fundamental rights of an individual. I feel no need to up and justify it with analogies of steak and famine.

You seem to be rooting yourself in the "It's better for jobs, prosperity, and the like". IOW you are putting society over the individual and I am doing the opposite. One of us sounds like a eugenicists and the other does not..

Come on Bull. We know that isn't true. We aren't stupid. It is about religion for you and a large number that post here.

Rob's you're such a fool..

Where I draw my conclusion that its a life in the womb does not in any way take away from the fact that my opposition to Abortion is based on its status and rights as a human life the same as me.

I happen to know pro life atheist.

I'm non religious but personally opposed to abortion after twenty weeks. I'm also just fine with leaving laws the way they are and focusing on more important issues that don't involve the government getting involved in personal medical decisions.

why 20 weeks? that is half way through the pregnancy.

if she doesn't have a period in two months (9 weeks) she needs to go pee on a stick fast.

(08-13-2015 02:11 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 12:50 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 12:48 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 09:49 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Whats really funny here Mach is that my desire to be pro life stems from a believe in the fundamental rights of an individual. I feel no need to up and justify it with analogies of steak and famine.

You seem to be rooting yourself in the "It's better for jobs, prosperity, and the like". IOW you are putting society over the individual and I am doing the opposite. One of us sounds like a eugenicists and the other does not..

Come on Bull. We know that isn't true. We aren't stupid. It is about religion for you and a large number that post here.

Funny, no one brought up religion until.....you.

Well, it certainly isn't about individual rights because he is trying to take those away from a woman. So what does that leave us as being the real motivation for his beliefs? Religion.

There's that.....or the individual rights of the innocent and defenseless being she chose to create. But I know you care not about those. Because womyn's rights and vag infiltrations.

(08-13-2015 02:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  small cluster of cells

Guy who hasn't seen the videos hasn't seen the videos.

(08-13-2015 02:18 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 01:02 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 12:59 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 12:48 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 09:49 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Whats really funny here Mach is that my desire to be pro life stems from a believe in the fundamental rights of an individual. I feel no need to up and justify it with analogies of steak and famine.

You seem to be rooting yourself in the "It's better for jobs, prosperity, and the like". IOW you are putting society over the individual and I am doing the opposite. One of us sounds like a eugenicists and the other does not..

Come on Bull. We know that isn't true. We aren't stupid. It is about religion for you and a large number that post here.

Rob's you're such a fool..

Where I draw my conclusion that its a life in the womb does not in any way take away from the fact that my opposition to Abortion is based on its status and rights as a human life the same as me.

I happen to know pro life atheist.

I'm non religious but personally opposed to abortion after twenty weeks. I'm also just fine with leaving laws the way they are and focusing on more important issues that don't involve the government getting involved in personal medical decisions.

why 20 weeks? that is half way through the pregnancy.

if she doesn't have a period in two months (9 weeks) she needs to go pee on a stick fast.

Why are men so woefully informed about such matters? Ugh! Not every female is on perfect cycles. I know several in my immediate circle of friends and family who are not.

I assume he said 20 weeks as it's next to impossible for babies born before that time frame to survive.

(08-13-2015 03:20 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 02:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  small cluster of cells

Guy who hasn't seen the videos hasn't seen the videos.

If a fetus is more important than the mother, then we can't allow any abortions even for the life of the mother. Which is warped. But that's the logical conclusion.

(08-13-2015 12:55 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 12:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 12:36 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 11:23 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  A better way to put it would be "the left condones the population control that abortion provides the black community."

Why? I don't know. The reasons are probably more malevolent than we realize. I mean....we need not look further than Planned Degeneracy's founder to get a bit of insight into that.

How are they forcing black women to have abortions?

They aren't. Who even said that?

Well...then gee. Why did you say "yes" to "The left uses abortion for population control on blacks." then?

I consider Planned Degeneracy a part of the left, so it holds some water.

Non sequitur.

You're subscribing to a notion that there is some systematic agenda to curtail the population of blacks. Just because one cities numbers alone fit that bill it in no way proves any sort of intent on the whole organization.

Besides...again...you cannot construct one logical argument as to why "the left" would want to do this...other than a dubious conclusion reached on the purported beliefs of someone from almost 100 years ago!

(08-13-2015 03:27 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 03:20 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 02:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  small cluster of cells

Guy who hasn't seen the videos hasn't seen the videos.

If a fetus is more important than the mother, then we can't allow any abortions even for the life of the mother.

When the it's either "the fetus or the woman," the woman ALWAYS has a choice. Whether she is 10 weeks or full-term. My wife told me before she gave birth to our son to "if it for some reason comes to this, don't even think about it, just choose him."

But are we really going to sit here and justify 100% of abortions because of a tiny, tiny percentage of them occur because of a danger to the mother?

(08-13-2015 12:57 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 12:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 11:56 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 11:19 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I'n not denying any of those facts. The claim made by ER and affirmed by you is that "The left uses abortion for population control on blacks."

I'd really like to know how...and more importantly...why? I don't seem to see an outcry from black women that their fetuses are being taken against their will.

Founded by a woman who wanted to keep black populations down
Plants their centers in heavily minority areas
Has led to more black babies being aborted than born in the nations largest city

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck...

That's akin to saying that all these black women are just ignorant automatons mindlessly getting abortions.

If not, please explain how this all works...how something attributed to a birth control advocate nearly 100 years ago...leads to a systematic process of getting black women to have abortions?

no its not.. your race card is overdrawn..

Then provide one logical explanation why "the left" would want less black babies...and why the black women keep going to PP to have them done.

And no, the purported beliefs of one woman from nearly 100 years ago doesn't count.