Prompted by CS shooting

I'd guess the majority of abortions are had by liberals or liberal voting women.

So, objectively speaking, is this a bad thing? Do we really want liberals reproducing? Reed, Pelosi, Schumer, Obama, Boxer, et al.

I'd rather they didn't vote

I always have said, if the one not aborted is not going to be cared for, turns out to be a burden and so on....

And if Obama had been...

but yet folks generally don't have a problem much with saving the woman rather than the child if there is a choice of one only.

To me its the couples choice and thats the way it should be. It'll be between them and God also.

Why we want to get so involved makes no sense to me.

It is VERY well documented by sociologist that the drop in crime rates in the 80' and 90's is directly attributable to Roe v. Wade.

Why is America so horrified with a mass murder at a school or theater but thinks nothing of mass murder at Planned Parenthood? It's the same thing.

That's a truly bizarre statement.

Would you be OK with liberal women killing their newborn babies? To me ,it is the same thing. Abortion is nothing but legalized murder.

The 2 are not the same in fact they're not even close. The outcome may be similar but the motivation is different.

Las-I've long maintained that those getting abortions are exactly the same people we don't want reproducing. However reprehensible I personally find abortion I'm not sure we as a society are prepared for the costs and responsibilities that raising all those "unwanted" children will demand. Some will be adopted but eventually the "market" for black babies will be saturated and they'll be "our" responsibility.

Think how many more Obama voters there would be without abortion---

It doesn't make any difference. The modern scribes & pharisees see a birthrate that doesn't support their social spending (social security, medicare, etc) so they import more criminals.

Nope prefer them to do it well before all that other money is spent on well being, care, birth rates in an ER and so on. The sooner the better.

Actually I"d prefer for them to be much more responsible and not become pregnant in the first place.

Not have many babies.

But if, in spite of efforts of prevention of pregnancy, it happens, and the outcome is going to be such that the child is not loved, and a PITA to society and takes money from me one way or the other, then by all means get after it. ITs THEIR call, NOT yours.

Sin is sin if you want to go down that route, according to the word, there is no degree of sin so the women that abort are the same as you and I. Common sinners.

Judge not....

You just asked if killing a baby is a bad thing.



Travis

Stalin concurred.



Travis

Think how many there are when a society deems abortion appropriate.




Travis

I'm staying out of this one! I'm sure most would be shocked at my thoughts on the matter....

But in any event, its not my decision to be made, so thats how much my opinion is worth....

Stallin was a puzzy.

You infertile types are typically pro-abortion.




Travis

Everybody is a puzzy compared to a wardog like yourself.

How's Stick's dick taste by the way?




Travis

You're just jealous cause I operated with a "license to kill" ( aka vasectomy) as a young single man....

I often wonder what goes through the mind of an ol gal when she lays flat on her back before the procedure starts. Several things come to mind 💉

Why would I be jealous of a man that can't procreate?



Travis

Cause he doesn't have to pay child support......

I don't like these liberal abortion laws,and I feel that if a woman chooses to get one for any reason other than rape,or medical danger she should be sterilized..

Men that are capable of procreating pay child support?



Travis

Yes. The 'responsible' ones do.

No worries, that leaves you out.

Do you feel that you should determine if a woman should, or should not, be sterilized? Or do you feel the government should determine that?




Travis

Yea Harlem,and Watts are full of them

So only responsible father's pay child support?



Travis

I know you addressed that to someone else, but if he turns the job down, I'd like to do it.

Laughin' my ass off.

Don't get out much, do ya'?



Travis

Well, theres some others that just plain feel guilty and do it.

You feel qualified for that position?



Dave

Yes. Eminently.

Amazing logic you have going there.



Clark

Ok.



Travis

I would like to see it written into the abortion laws,but it will never happen

You'd like to see your position be written into the abortion laws? And if so, what is that position?



Travis

The missionary position

I just saw you're from West Vagina. I apologize for fugking with you.

If any of you Menses-Grade-types want to display your intellect, I'll be drinking for another hour or 8.



Clakr

I don't want to get "involved"....I just don't want to pay for it....

I also have an opinion of those that use it as a form of birth control but I'll keep that to myself...

That work was done by economist, not sociologist.

Why don't you educate this ignort hillbilly..Tell us how things would be if it were up to you..You have an intellectual advantage over me,because you're from Montana,and your brain's running at 15 degrees,and mines running a little hot at about 98

In totality or only related to "abortion?"



Travis

I've never understood the rape and incest outlet for "prolifers".

If life starts at conception, as many believe, you're murdering a child for a crime he/she was not even witness to.

That's completely fugged up.

In totality..I bet you have dreams about being the first King of America..And you better take another swig of that anti-freeze you're drinking, so your brain don't freeze and bust

Slippery slopes tend to be very slippery.

And butt-fugkers know where to start.




Clark

In totality?

I'd enslave all those that remained loyal to the Union. For starters.



Dave

They don't have them so that they can collect more free money, they actually produce more Obama voters.

Is it better to be raised by human parents who don't want you than to go back to God?

[quote=MadMooner]I've never understood the rape and incest outlet for "prolifers".

If life starts at conception, as many believe, you're murdering a child for a crime he/she was not even witness to.

That's completely fugged up. [/qu
Thank you

I'm sure they're all dead Jonny Reb.

Aces/Jordan types will be put on trains.

Consider yourself warned.


Dave

Two more tokes and try again.





Dave

Sarcasm, deflave. At least I hope so.

My job here is done....

Interesting...

Particularly the race and religion stats....

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Fugkin' frame worthy.




Travis

So you're not a believer?

I viewed (for a few minutes) a program on Fox the other night of some Hollywood power women trying to adopt out rescue dogs (mostly pits). ....I've never seen such effort expended toward the same for "unwanted" humans.

I don't have an informed religious opinion on abortion; I find it sick and creepy on it's own merits.

Be specific doll. Vague only serves you Texas types.



Travis

I don't have a problem with it nor is it any of my business.

I agree totally. And as well as why loose the child over the mother in a medical situation, either you are for ALL children or you are speaking out both sides of the mouth.

Hey... (not hay)

Dunno about that, I don't read sociologist's "research". I do read other research, though, and there were some published actuarial studies cross-referenced in a medical article I read some time ago that showed a very strong correlation between the huge abortion rate among black women and the reduction in crime rate.

well duh.... less perps, less crime....

It's not an "outlet" for "prolifers".

It's a compromise made by politicians.

I don't know where you come up with that. Could you enlighten me? Is this just a guess? An unsupported hope?

Well I'll not be the one telling a 10 year old she has to carry her grandfather's love child in her belly for 9 months.

Although much more provocative terms come to mind, it is "interesting" to read the equivocations and explanations of those who, in their minds and conscience, apparently justify - or are willing to ignore - the murder of millions of innocent babies.

I'm sure of the millions of abortions, this is a large percentage of the causes...

Never said it was, perhaps you missed reading comprehension the day it was taught on the Rez.

I don't think abortion is an all or nothing thing.

I hope you at least gave her the money and didn't make your daughter pay for it.

You're still pissed about watching your crack head mom blow all those cops and not you.

The original work was done by Stephen Levitt, an Economist from the University of Chicago.

People really can't reason anymore and its really big business to get folks worked up over what they are paying for.

I've said a million times we fund bad behavior and criminals, yet its pretty much a lost idea for people with "passions" to pursue.

Yea Gomer, I was there, didn't miss a thing. Your analagy, typical of these things is still Swiss Cheese and full of holes...

Of course it is. Confronted with the reality of a pregnant 9 yo or a rape victim, many prolife adherents relent.

There is nothing else you can call it.

I'm sure creating a problem to invent a solution wasn't lost on a commie like Levitt.....

In the face of human obstinence, even God relented on divorce. That still didn't make it right. So, what was your point?

Thanks for the citation, A_S.

Have you ever noticed that Preachers almost never talk about Mathew 19 verses 8,and 9 were Jesus says Moses was right,you can divorce your wife,but if you do for any reason other than adultry,then if you,or her gets remarried then it's adultry..If they did then it would bring a few holier than thou people down a peg...

I've mulled the whole thing over in my mind for a while, and I really can't see a perfect solution that would work. Glad I don't have to make the decision for others.

Levitt is about the furthest think you can get from a Marxist Commie. He's a free market advocate that studies at Chicago while Milton Friedman was department chair.

Have you ever noticed that Preachers almost never talk about Mathew 19 verses 8,and 9 were Jesus says Moses was right,you can divorce your wife,but if you do for any reason other than adultry,then if you,or her gets remarried then it's adultry..If they did then it would bring a few holier than thou people down a peg... [/quote
Right there plain as day, Read it several times

Personally, I feel it's a very sick mind that can justify killing a child.

rost495,



I usually like your posts, so want to understand what you are saying here. Are you saying if your wife is pregnant and something goes wrong, you would not try to save her even if it meant loosing the baby?

the folks who post on this site knows for a fact is what is our most personal opinion, and set in concrete.

in other words, please take a position and then set it in concrete.

feel better now?

the truth is ephemeral. what?

for an old line follower of the mighty War God YHWH, the soul enters the physical body at the first breath of LIFE.

i guess interpretations vary. and so they should.

Gus, don't confuse them with facts from their own holy book. There are also specific passages that endorse abortion, but that would just make their heads explode.

ok, fair enough. so, just why did humans choose to bow down to the monkey/biological imperative to enjoin the females and males? because they felt like they had to, perhaps?

or was the payoff worthy of the risk? humans, breeding with humans, and when is enough, truly enough? anyone know for sure?

humans running the earth. what a concept.

we've got some 19 billion of dollars in debt to der chinese and others, in various amounts.

if the earth housed 19 billion humans instead of the current 9 or 7 billion eaters, so what's the problem? anyone know for sure?

just how much output can this earth produce under the radience of the sun, and how should it be divided, allocated, or distributed? anyone know for sure?

Gus,

When you talk about dividing and distributing, you are going down a real [bleep] commie road. Are you a Communist Marxist?

well, uh, no. but on the other hand, there's tons of folks who travel with us, for better or worse.

to further state, we've strayed off the main road, into the commie/socialist road long long ago. and no one ever bothered to lift a finger. ya know?

why can't we start at the base line zero point, and move forward from there? we've got the Earth, it's ability to produce annual and multi-year production. we humans have the ability to process the annual production, mine gold, silver, oil, etc. and fish in the ocean for protein.

anything else? does anybody know for sure?

Gus, what do you mean by "begin at a base line zero point".

Are you saying I have to give up everything and hope the collective decides to give me back more then what they took from me so we could get to your "baseline point", or are you advocating that we wipe the existing laws from the books and start over?

If you are suggestion zero base budgeting, I'm all for making every government agency justify every dollar of spending over zero every year.

I'll disagree. I don't think the urban breeders ever cared about abortion. Assuming urban children are crime-prone, I don't think abortion has reduced crime.

Here's the paper where it was first published:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2696468?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Gentlemen,



Please document with chapter and verses. While you're at it, please leave out explanations.

Anyone need a definition for irony???

I'll take the documented facts over that attempt at a thought.

Well,, maybe he can or maybe he can't. My head is not exploding and I doubt yours is either.

“Misinformed unbelievers often pull little-known verses out of context in an attempt to smear Christianity. They present these verses as “evidence” that Christians are hypocrites, picking and choosing what Scriptures they want to follow or ignore.”

Further, they take these verses and provide their own interpretation of what the verses mean or pertain to. Simply poor and tainted scholarship. Their purpose is not to understand but to mock and sway those who are unsure of what they are reading.

“”Eisegesis”, the pouring of their own meaning into the verses, is vital to their hard set error. They impose their own interpretation on the verse rather than discover the meaning of the verse intended by the author. The Old Testament is a mystery to them. The concept of the different covenants seems incomprehensible to them. The concept that the OT law is composed of ceremonial, civil and moral law is difficult for them to accept as it does not fill their need to misinterpret and mock.

Be that as it may, they cannot or choose not to accept some basic concepts of Biblical interpretation. This may by choice for some and for others it may be that they simply cannot understand that which must be spiritually discerned. This allegation of course enrages them.

For some, the key to their rage is Jesus, the stumbling block. The question may be “Who sits on the throne of your life? Are you the king or is Jesus the King?

Satan, blinded to reality by his pride, said “I will be like the Most High.” He tried to dethrone God and failed. We as sinful human beings do the same thing when we place our own thoughts and desires above those of the “Most High.”

Of course there is a quite a difference between our fate and that of Satan’s.


TF

Documented facts? It's a theory. A theory that John Lott (of "More Guns, Less Crime" fame) disagrees with.
http://www.nrlc.org/archive/news/2001/NRL06/randylaura.html

The corresponding change in crime rates is fairly well observed there, but please kindly point out where that "research" documented that the change was "directly attributable" to Roe v.Wade, as you state.

I posted the paper.

Barry posted a very good counter paper.

Read them both and decide for yourself.

this

To paraphrase an old saying, you can lead them to the information, but you can't make them read (or think...)

At times, clear thinking involves reading it all and questioning those who claim "directly attributable" in the absence of decent proof.

Aren't abortions cheaper than paying welfare cost to raise child into adulthood and beyond? If the answer is yes than the choice should be clear to all but most dense people.

You're moving from Tennessee?

If you ain't been around a 10 year that was knocked up by her grandfather, then you can't imagine the situation.

While we are moot legislating here, you bring up another problem - there ought not be any govt welfare. Welfare is a charity and should be left to private charities.

It's amazing how F'ed up things get when you allow the govt to operate outside it's legitimate bounds. Let them get involved in welfare and suddenly infanticide becomes OK. Let them get involved in healthcare and before you know it, we have abortions like ZeroCare or single payer, both with death panels.

What's really [bleep] up is that someone actually deems it commonplace and acceptable that the government raises people from childhood to adulthood via welfare, AND that a cost savings is an equitable argument to abortion....

Is this a club or a local group that you attend?

Please, tell me what you do for a living? What have you done for your community, country? How old are you?

Do you or have ever done a frigging thing besides live in a wheeled home and eat gas station tater logs while jerking off to 'Farm Animals Gone Wild, Iowa Edition'

And a .22 round is cheaper than continued welfare costs, social security payments, maintaining a traffic court, or about anything else government spends money on.

antelope_sniper & Gus,

I'm still waiting for the chapters and verses you boys mentioned are found in the Bible where the soul enters at the point of birth and anything that supports abortion. We, Bible thumpers, don't need explanations, just the references, please.

I'm still waiting for someone to point out in the bible how this sin is different from other sin....

Maybe welfare should be reconsidered. After all, Scrooge might have said it best in Charles Dickens "A Christmas Carol" when he said "and decrease the surplus population." We can also reduce unemployment by hiring the unemployed to make daily forays around the city and pick up the dead. Ahhh, the wonder of it.

Sin is sin, but how is sin defined? Is it in the mind of the beholder or defined in the "Big Book of Fairy "ales"? Not all believe in the "Big Book of Fairy Tales", so why should the believers inflict their beliefs on the rest?

And this includes categories such as:
- Alcohol
- Abortion
- Homosexuality
- Hunting
- Color of your auto
- Religion
- Morality
- etc.
- etc.

Why not just live and let live? Believe what you want, but don't inflict it on others.

please correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't believe i ever said it was stated in the bible. there's a lot of hebrew traditon and traditional teaching that Moses and others didn't record directly in the bible, i believe.

i think that tradtionally speaking, it's long been thought by old-school proponents of the hebrew history is that the soul enters the physical body at the first intake of breath (inspiration). the soul probably existed much sooner than conception, or could have.

in early genesis, there's reference to God breathing into the clay, and a human became. but, i'm not sure if that is helpful or not.

lot's of interpretations out there. more than one in fact. and i still maintain that's a good thing.

You ask “how is sin defined?”

If it is defined in the mind of the beholder then sin can be whatever one wants it to be. I could decide that it is sin for you to rob me but it is not sin for me to rob you. Nah, maybe that doesn’t work too well.

As defined in the Big Book, sin would be that thought, word, act or deed that is not in line with or endorsed by God. Yep, have to refer to the Big Book for that. The Big Book and the attendant “Judeo-Christian” ethic has been around for centuries. But if you don’t follow after God and the Big Book, you can leave it behind.

So, how about “societal norms?” Let “society” decide. So, sin in a society dominated by ISIS for example, could be very different from sin in the US. So, sin is a variable. A variable? Nah, that does not work for me. Maybe for you but not for me.

Maybe one could pick and choose what is “sin” and then also kinda pick and choose what “societal norms” one would maintain compliance with? What’s wrong with that? Besides, if one can “get away with it” then why not choose what to obey and what not to obey and just try not to get caught? One might say “I am my own judge anyway, so why not?” There are no consequences if “I don’t get caught.” One could let HIS OWN conscience be his guide. Many subscribe to the personal convenience of this.

What about the consequences of sin? Accountability? Accountable to who? Accountable to yourself alone? Seems circular to me. Goes nowhere. How about accountable to “society.” Well, ok, we certainly have that today. “Sin” or at least lawbreaking certainly does have consequences. This is a logical end point for many. They let “society” tell them what is ok and what is not ok. They bend their thinking to what they see in the world. This works well for most sheep and they seem content with it. Accountable to “society” leaves me wondering about what if “society’ is wrong? Is it ok to follow the herd?

But wait, what if there is a Creator and what if we, as his creation, are accountable to God and subject to some future judgement. A judgment where one must give an accounting of his life to a righteous and all knowing judge. It may be that “sin” is a more serious subject than we would like it to be.

TF

so, djs, what do you think is sin?

Sorry, miss at 12 oclock.

Perhaps it is the act of having a "doctor" rip your unborn child from limb to limb and disposing or selling the body parts that makes a woman a liberal rather than being a liberal makes on do that to their unborn child.

I contend it is legal abortions that have spawned more heartless mindless liberals than the birth of "unwanted" children.

Check your PM.

An old Rabbi who was around just prior to the birth of Jesus said something like :

"Do not unto another that which is hurtful to Thee. This is the whole of the Law, all else is conversation".

that there was one more thoughtful sage. obviously, he had sat under the shade of a big oaktree while debating theology with his breathtren as the flocks grazed on grass near the stream.

This is a lame response.

Unless you PM'd a picture of your COCK.

In that case it's hilarious.




Dave

he's too busy running around trying to convince folks the us is still the center of the world. meanwhile, the un is steadily taking over ldrshp because the us no longer has anyone to lead the country any more, much less the world.

ol YHWH said there'd be days like this.

With abortion legal there should be no crimes against the fetus. Intentional or unintentional should not matter.

If a person's life is driven by the checkbook balance, the financial bottom line and/or any means of increased efficiency (government or otherwise) regardless of moral considerations - the choice may be clear and easy. For those who live by other and deeper codes, life can become quite dense. IMHO, God gave us much more than $$ with which to exercise our souls, hearts and talents.

The reasonable implications of this statement seem sweeping. Maybe one who so thinks would have enjoyed Nazi Germany. I've never trusted all of our lawmakers/laws and judges to do what is correct for this society. Too much blind faith involved.