Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet.....

Not true.

There are way more atheist on this site than you suspect. I'm just more vocal than most.

So women celebrate the fact that they can now kill the human they created because they were not using readily available birth control or self-control?

Ridiculous.

Exactly right.

DD that's pretty much it.

So unwanted kids and single mothers living off the state is a good thing?

What makes you think that the "single mothers living off the state" don't want their kids? They view them as annuities. There has been plenty of that going on the U.S. since 1973 when Roe passed. If anything, legalized abortion and easily obtainable birth control should be an argument for Uncle Sam getting out of the daddy business.

there's 7.62 billion people populating the earth, give or take one or two.

at some point, total population (human type) and total consumption will force it's way upon the table.

i don't know if birth control in it's various forms is a good thing or bad thing, but maybe it's needed, or not?

when deer, hogs, and other wildlife over=populates it can become a worrisome issue.

humans might not be in that category at all. maybe there's an exemption?

Abortion is a deeply personal <flawed> decision and one that impacts 2 lives, 1 more so than the other. I'm personally against abortion and always have been but I'm also pro-freedom and decisively anti-government, especially as it regards personal choice.

Anyone that has an abortion or aids in abortion will answer to God after the final curtain call and they alone will suffer the consequences of their "choice". While I detest the murder of innocent babies I'm not sure that the alternative is much better, for the individual and for society in general. The statistics and facts about abortion indicate that a large percentage of those making that dreadful choice are already a drain on our welfare system and blacks are more inclined to abort their babies than whites. The poor are more inclined to abort than are the middle or upper class.

While abortion is detestable and unarguably a sin I can't help but wonder what impact millions of unwanted and poor children would have on this nation? Abuse and neglect are no way for a child to grow up and the legacy of a lifetime of abuse and neglect is likely to have far reaching consequences long after that unwanted child is incarcerated.

Just another sign of the collapse of Roman Catholic values. It took longer in strongly Catholic societies, i.e., you had to wait till the pre-Vatican II Catholics mostly died off. Vatican II constituted the official surrender of the Catholic Church to the coup that had been seeking its overthrow for a few centuries.

Something else replaced it, calling itself by the same name, but it was in fact a changeling institution, which essentially promoted the opposite of what the Catholic Church promoted. But many Catholics themselves simply ignored the values that the changeling Church was promoting. Since the newer generations were receiving their values from the changeling institution, however, they eventually became the majority of Catholics, and the changeling values became the values within what had been strongly Catholic nations. That's where we are, at this time in history, in Ireland. It was only a matter of time.

Exactly. The kids of single mothers living off the state aren't unwanted and aren't the ones gettting aborted, they bring in too much money. The ones getting aborted are the kids of the middle class that would be too much of an inconvenience to the mother's busy life. Kids are paycheck generators to the lower classes, that's the reason you'll see a welfare mother with seven kids like stair steps but are hard pressed to find a professional woman in her 30's that has more than one kid.

Folks want to do as they please, no surprise

Of course not. Red herring. You're better than that.

I mean, we could just sanction murder of anyone we don't want/like/find value in. Maybe put them to good use too, like dog food or lamp shades, a la Swift.

If an abortion is performed, it's a pretty clear sign the pregnancy was undesired. As for your argument against government subsidies, well, I'm almost always for a decent argument against more government.

I'm suggestion you spend sometime time educating yourself of the consequences of what you propose.

This experiment's already been run, and the results were not good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgZJ-IV8Et0

I didn't read either link, but I often wonder if there were no abortions at all, could we really afford that many more welfare mouths to feed, that many more jails to build etc....

And no I'm not really for it, but IMHO its like any other "sin". Its between you and god

Actually, the evidence doesn't support your assertion. A disproportionate number of abortions occur within the deep under class, those least able, even with government assistance to care for a new born.

Within the middle class, it's concentrated among those still in school, adding to the potential human capital and productive potential. As recently discussed in another thread, the 3 significant factors for remaining out of poverty is finishing school, getting a job, and not having kids prior to marriage. What DD doesn't understand is his preference for laws condemning women to the underclass. In reality, he's not advocating for the protection of the vulnerable, but an expansion of permanent under class.

This^^^. Could we survive 6 million more dhimmicrap votes?

A patient asked me to remember in the Bible about people raised unchristian nations and considered unsalvagable where the Lord directed His people to kill ALL the inhabitants. Was it the only way the babies and kids had a path to Heaven?

Just the prison expenses alone would break this nation. Steven Levitt, and economist from the University of Chicago (the school of Hayek and Friedman) did a study on the effects of abortion of murder rate. After Roe v. Wade, a significant portion of the reduction in murder, and other associated crimes, experienced in this country can be attributed to this decision. Unwanted, underclass males are tailor made for gangs, crime, and terrorism.

Let's just go and kill all those kids in orphanages and children's homes, what's the difference? One big difference is many, many, many of these unborn kids would be placed in loving, and caring homes if put up for adoption, not the same for those in orphanages, etc. I'm failing to find a moral difference in the baby killing argument and the orphan argument. While we're at it, let's just "eliminate" all those homeless, unwanted adults wandering around our cities.Where is the line, and who decides? Either life is precious and worth saving or not.

Unabashedly pro-life and Christian.

bludog

BD, seldom does a black and white interpretation such as your serve well in the real world. As an example if we take the "all life is scared" to the extreme you arrive at the conclusion that KFC is equivalent to The Holocaust.

As for your question as to "who decides", for the most part, I'd begin with "Not the government".