Right now I think the death toll from abortion is roughly between 50 and 60 million people.  That's orders of magnitude more than the holocaust, this is one of the greatest tragedies in human history.  The idea that you can casually say "oh well, let's just kill tens of millions of people because most foster kids don't have cable." is symptomatic of a larger devaluation of the basic sanctity of life that has infected this country that is going to have ramifications that most people still don't understand.  

As for the idea that "If you don't want a child you shouldn't have a say."  That's like saying if I didn't want to orally service the rapist then who am I to judge his sexual choices.  

"You're not  woman, you don't get a say!"  What about the 30 some odd women who were sucked out of the womb.  What would they say?  Also, if a woman kills a toddler she's basically (and rightfully so) seen as the lowest rung of society.  The development level of the child is a mitigating factor.  So if a rape a pre-pubescent child it should be okay?

"What about right to privacy?"  The law currently holds that if a person demonstrates themselves to be a credible threat to themselves or others that physicians are mandated to alert the authorities and have the power to commit someone against their will for psychiatric evaluation.  The idea that a woman who expresses the desire to kill her own child in the womb creates some new death sacrament that is to be celebrated with extra-constitutional grace is more than just flawed, its evil.  

"Roe v. Wade"  The lead plantiff in the case HAD THE CHILD!  Did she go insane from nine months of carrying a child to term?  Did it ruin her life?  No!  In fact the facts of the case demonstrate that pregnancy is NOT an undue burden especially when weighed against the finality of death.  

Margaret Sanger: America's Hitler.  There's not other way to put it really.  When you look at the history of eugenics and the incestuous relationship between americans of the practice and Nazi's at the time it's not a similarity, it's a direct causal relationship.  She believed in putting poor people in concentration camps.  Pro Choice?  She didn't believe in the concept.  She wrote an entire book about the fact that the government should pass laws about who would be allowed to pro-create and who wouldn't.  She believed the best gift that could be given to Minorities and other "weeds of humanity" was birth control.  When you examine her background you see a woman that resented her own large family (10 brothers and sisters) for the lack of attention she received and the eventual trauma of loosing her mother.  It is very likely that as a result she was a functioning psychopath or at a minimum demonstrated an inordinate level of anti-social behavior in her relationships and ideas about life and the world.  The idea that this woman and her racist death cult ideology have basically dominated our culture for the last 45 years is a stain on our countries history approaching that of slavery.

You can say whatever you want, but your argument is just a bunch of nonsense to me. I don't believe a life is truly a life, until you take a breath outside of the womb. 

You said it yourself. Between 50-60 million people would have been born without abortions. That's 50-60 million unwanted kids. Where are they gonna go? Are you willing to adopt some of them? I guarantee most of them would have gone into the foster system, which is already overcrowded. You say abortion is taking a life, I say it's preventing a life from happening. A hard life in which that child would've been born to careless, irresponsible parents who didn't want it in the first place and would've probably either mistreated it or given it away to be raised by the state. I'll say it again. People are wreckless and irresponsible. There will always be unwanted pregnancies. Without abortions, what are you gonna do with all of these unwanted children? You seem vehemently opposed to abortion and want it banned. What do you propose we do with all of the unwanted kids who would now be brought to term? You can't just oppose something without providing some type of viable solution.

1.) I understand biology can be a bit tricky.  If you would like a refresher course on the difference between the process of meosis where we form the gamete cells and mitotic cell division/fission post fertilization then I'm game, but science demonstrates that life begins at conception.  

2.) Again, what's you government sponsored program for men with a fetish or predisposition to become sexually excited by sadistic non-consensual acts against women?  If you aren't going to pay for a government issued concubine to play his sadistic games then you can't possibly consider rape a crime right?  What about pedophilia?  If you aren't going to pretend to be a prepubescent child and service their sexual needs then obviously you have to allow child molestation right?  The very nature of the social contract obligates us all to base normative behavior without the incentive of a cookie or government program to ease the pain or conducting ourselves as law abiding citizens.  

3.) Yes, Foster homes can suck.  Yes, being born to mean parents sucks.  Any idea that its better to have a scalpel to the back of the head and have your brains sucked out is better than being stuck in a crappy foster home with no cable is "just a bunch of nonsense"

4.) As a nation we mitigate irresponsibility and recklessness through a common commitment to personal responsibility and the sanctity of the individual.  We don't subsidize it through mass genocide just because you not every foster home or adoptive parent has unlimited wi-fi!

---

Right now I think the death toll from abortion is roughly between 50 and 60 million people.  That's orders of magnitude more than the holocaust, this is one of the greatest tragedies in human history.  The idea that you can casually say "oh well, let's just kill tens of millions of people because most foster kids don't have cable." is symptomatic of a larger devaluation of the basic sanctity of life that has infected this country that is going to have ramifications that most people still don't understand.  

As for the idea that "If you don't want a child you shouldn't have a say."  That's like saying if I didn't want to orally service the rapist then who am I to judge his sexual choices.  

"You're not  woman, you don't get a say!"  What about the 30 some odd women who were sucked out of the womb.  What would they say?  Also, if a woman kills a toddler she's basically (and rightfully so) seen as the lowest rung of society.  The development level of the child is a mitigating factor.  So if a rape a pre-pubescent child it should be okay?

"What about right to privacy?"  The law currently holds that if a person demonstrates themselves to be a credible threat to themselves or others that physicians are mandated to alert the authorities and have the power to commit someone against their will for psychiatric evaluation.  The idea that a woman who expresses the desire to kill her own child in the womb creates some new death sacrament that is to be celebrated with extra-constitutional grace is more than just flawed, its evil.  

"Roe v. Wade"  The lead plantiff in the case HAD THE CHILD!  Did she go insane from nine months of carrying a child to term?  Did it ruin her life?  No!  In fact the facts of the case demonstrate that pregnancy is NOT an undue burden especially when weighed against the finality of death.  

Margaret Sanger: America's Hitler.  There's not other way to put it really.  When you look at the history of eugenics and the incestuous relationship between americans of the practice and Nazi's at the time it's not a similarity, it's a direct causal relationship.  She believed in putting poor people in concentration camps.  Pro Choice?  She didn't believe in the concept.  She wrote an entire book about the fact that the government should pass laws about who would be allowed to pro-create and who wouldn't.  She believed the best gift that could be given to Minorities and other "weeds of humanity" was birth control.  When you examine her background you see a woman that resented her own large family (10 brothers and sisters) for the lack of attention she received and the eventual trauma of loosing her mother.  It is very likely that as a result she was a functioning psychopath or at a minimum demonstrated an inordinate level of anti-social behavior in her relationships and ideas about life and the world.  The idea that this woman and her racist death cult ideology have basically dominated our culture for the last 45 years is a stain on our countries history approaching that of slavery.

You can say whatever you want, but your argument is just a bunch of nonsense to me. I don't believe a life is truly a life, until you take a breath outside of the womb. 

You said it yourself. Between 50-60 million people would have been born without abortions. That's 50-60 million unwanted kids. Where are they gonna go? Are you willing to adopt some of them? I guarantee most of them would have gone into the foster system, which is already overcrowded. You say abortion is taking a life, I say it's preventing a life from happening. A hard life in which that child would've been born to careless, irresponsible parents who didn't want it in the first place and would've probably either mistreated it or given it away to be raised by the state. I'll say it again. People are wreckless and irresponsible. There will always be unwanted pregnancies. Without abortions, what are you gonna do with all of these unwanted children? You seem vehemently opposed to abortion and want it banned. What do you propose we do with all of the unwanted kids who would now be brought to term? You can't just oppose something without providing some type of viable solution.

I think you make some valid but ethically questionable points here.
We can't know for sure what a world were most of those kids never got aborted looks like. Perhaps there never would have been any demand for illegal immigrant labor. perhaps a lot of those kids would have ended up in construction and lawn care in meatpacking for instance. It's impossible to know and to just assume that the world would be worse off is magical thinking in my opinion.
I'll grant you that a kid who is not wanted, but has to be kept, is more likely to be raised by a single mother and more likely to have a lot of difficulties early in life.
but I think that type of problem looks a lot different today than it looked in 1973.
We have so many more options for birth control now, and they have so many fewer side effects. Most of the options prevent an egg from even being ovulated in the first place.
I know that a lot of the pro-life people in this country are not with me on this, but I fully support making at least some forms of birth control free, or subsidized, and available over-the-counter.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You can say whatever you want, but your argument is just a bunch of nonsense to me. I don't believe a life is truly a life, until you take a breath outside of the womb. 

You said it yourself. Between 50-60 million people would have been born without abortions. That's 50-60 million unwanted kids. Where are they gonna go? Are you willing to adopt some of them? I guarantee most of them would have gone into the foster system, which is already overcrowded. You say abortion is taking a life, I say it's preventing a life from happening. A hard life in which that child would've been born to careless, irresponsible parents who didn't want it in the first place and would've probably either mistreated it or given it away to be raised by the state. I'll say it again. People are wreckless and irresponsible. There will always be unwanted pregnancies. Without abortions, what are you gonna do with all of these unwanted children? You seem vehemently opposed to abortion and want it banned. What do you propose we do with all of the unwanted kids who would now be brought to term? You can't just oppose something without providing some type of viable solution.

1.) I understand biology can be a bit tricky.  If you would like a refresher course on the difference between the process of meosis where we form the gamete cells and mitotic cell division/fission post fertilization then I'm game, but science demonstrates that life begins at conception.  

2.) Again, what's you government sponsored program for men with a fetish or predisposition to become sexually excited by sadistic non-consensual acts against women?  If you aren't going to pay for a government issued concubine to play his sadistic games then you can't possibly consider rape a crime right?  What about pedophilia?  If you aren't going to pretend to be a prepubescent child and service their sexual needs then obviously you have to allow child molestation right?  The very nature of the social contract obligates us all to base normative behavior without the incentive of a cookie or government program to ease the pain or conducting ourselves as law abiding citizens.  

3.) Yes, Foster homes can suck.  Yes, being born to mean parents sucks.  Any idea that its better to have a scalpel to the back of the head and have your brains sucked out is better than being stuck in a crappy foster home with no cable is "just a bunch of nonsense"

4.) As a nation we mitigate irresponsibility and recklessness through a common commitment to personal responsibility and the sanctity of the individual.  We don't subsidize it through mass genocide just because you not every foster home or adoptive parent has unlimited wi-fi!

1. Disagree. It all depends on what your interpretation of "life" is. What you and I refer to as "life", may be very different. 

2. What are you even talking about? Your going off on a wild tangent, trying to relate entirely different subjects that have nothing at all, to do with one another. Please stay on point. 

3. That's your opinion. If I knew I was going to be born into a life where I was unwanted and abused, I'd much rather choose not to be born at all. 

4. Again, I ask you this, because you dodged the question. If we ban abortions, what do we do with all the unwanted children that will now be born into to bad families that didn't want them and into already overcrowded foster homes? In order to effectively oppose something, you need to have a solution to the problem. You're not giving any viable solutions. All you're doing is giving opinions on why you oppose abortions. What does unlimited wi-fi have to do with anything? You sound like a crazy person.

---

You can say whatever you want, but your argument is just a bunch of nonsense to me. I don't believe a life is truly a life, until you take a breath outside of the womb. 

You said it yourself. Between 50-60 million people would have been born without abortions. That's 50-60 million unwanted kids. Where are they gonna go? Are you willing to adopt some of them? I guarantee most of them would have gone into the foster system, which is already overcrowded. You say abortion is taking a life, I say it's preventing a life from happening. A hard life in which that child would've been born to careless, irresponsible parents who didn't want it in the first place and would've probably either mistreated it or given it away to be raised by the state. I'll say it again. People are wreckless and irresponsible. There will always be unwanted pregnancies. Without abortions, what are you gonna do with all of these unwanted children? You seem vehemently opposed to abortion and want it banned. What do you propose we do with all of the unwanted kids who would now be brought to term? You can't just oppose something without providing some type of viable solution.

I think you make some valid but ethically questionable points here.
We can't know for sure what a world were most of those kids never got aborted looks like. Perhaps there never would have been any demand for illegal immigrant labor. perhaps a lot of those kids would have ended up in construction and lawn care in meatpacking for instance. It's impossible to know and to just assume that the world would be worse off is magical thinking in my opinion.
I'll grant you that a kid who is not wanted, but has to be kept, is more likely to be raised by a single mother and more likely to have a lot of difficulties early in life.
but I think that type of problem looks a lot different today than it looked in 1973.
We have so many more options for birth control now, and they have so many fewer side effects. Most of the options prevent an egg from even being ovulated in the first place.
I know that a lot of the pro-life people in this country are not with me on this, but I fully support making at least some forms of birth control free, or subsidized, and available over-the-counter.

Line them up at schools for the shot like they did at Basic then use dart guns for the free roamers in the wild.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You can say whatever you want, but your argument is just a bunch of nonsense to me. I don't believe a life is truly a life, until you take a breath outside of the womb. 

You said it yourself. Between 50-60 million people would have been born without abortions. That's 50-60 million unwanted kids. Where are they gonna go? Are you willing to adopt some of them? I guarantee most of them would have gone into the foster system, which is already overcrowded. You say abortion is taking a life, I say it's preventing a life from happening. A hard life in which that child would've been born to careless, irresponsible parents who didn't want it in the first place and would've probably either mistreated it or given it away to be raised by the state. I'll say it again. People are wreckless and irresponsible. There will always be unwanted pregnancies. Without abortions, what are you gonna do with all of these unwanted children? You seem vehemently opposed to abortion and want it banned. What do you propose we do with all of the unwanted kids who would now be brought to term? You can't just oppose something without providing some type of viable solution.

I think you make some valid but ethically questionable points here.
We can't know for sure what a world were most of those kids never got aborted looks like. Perhaps there never would have been any demand for illegal immigrant labor. perhaps a lot of those kids would have ended up in construction and lawn care in meatpacking for instance. It's impossible to know and to just assume that the world would be worse off is magical thinking in my opinion.
I'll grant you that a kid who is not wanted, but has to be kept, is more likely to be raised by a single mother and more likely to have a lot of difficulties early in life.
but I think that type of problem looks a lot different today than it looked in 1973.
We have so many more options for birth control now, and they have so many fewer side effects. Most of the options prevent an egg from even being ovulated in the first place.
I know that a lot of the pro-life people in this country are not with me on this, but I fully support making at least some forms of birth control free, or subsidized, and available over-the-counter.

I know we cannot know for sure what a world with all these new people would look like, but you have to admit, the foster care system is already overcrowded and it would be even more so with all these addition kids. How many more is anyone's guess. While a lot of those children could end up in menial, blue collar jobs often filled by illegals, I don't think that it would make much of a difference. They would still be American citizens, subject to the "going rate" for such jobs. The reason many illegals are hired, is because they are willing to work for pay below the "going rate" on those jobs, in order to stay anonymous. That would not be the case for the new Americans who would be born if abortion were made illegal. They would still expect to be paid the "going rate" for any job they took. 

See, now we're making some headway. You are offering some realistic solutions here. I can definitely get on board with offering free birth control. That could drastically reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies. I would also add that getting such birth control should not require a parents permission and should be given to a person of any age. Maybe than, we wouldn't see so many teen pregnancies as well.

---

I think you make some valid but ethically questionable points here.
We can't know for sure what a world were most of those kids never got aborted looks like. Perhaps there never would have been any demand for illegal immigrant labor. perhaps a lot of those kids would have ended up in construction and lawn care in meatpacking for instance. It's impossible to know and to just assume that the world would be worse off is magical thinking in my opinion.
I'll grant you that a kid who is not wanted, but has to be kept, is more likely to be raised by a single mother and more likely to have a lot of difficulties early in life.
but I think that type of problem looks a lot different today than it looked in 1973.
We have so many more options for birth control now, and they have so many fewer side effects. Most of the options prevent an egg from even being ovulated in the first place.
I know that a lot of the pro-life people in this country are not with me on this, but I fully support making at least some forms of birth control free, or subsidized, and available over-the-counter.

I know we cannot know for sure what a world with all these new people would look like, but you have to admit, the foster care system is already overcrowded and it would be even more so with all these addition kids. How many more is anyone's guess. While a lot of those children could end up in menial, blue collar jobs often filled by illegals, I don't think that it would make much of a difference. They would still be American citizens, subject to the "going rate" for such jobs. The reason many illegals are hired, is because they are willing to work for pay below the "going rate" on those jobs, in order to stay anonymous. That would not be the case for the new Americans who would be born if abortion were made illegal. They would still expect to be paid the "going rate" for any job they took. 

See, now we're making some headway. You are offering some realistic solutions here. I can definitely get on board with offering free birth control. That could drastically reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies. I would also add that getting such birth control should not require a parents permission and should be given to a person of any age. Maybe than, we wouldn't see so many teen pregnancies as well.

What you old farts don't get is that you've aborted half of the generation that was going to support you in your dotage. Without 60 million additional tax payers your already overtaxed health care and Social Security Ponzi schemes are going to collapse in your lifetime instead of after you've passed on to your just reward.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Good for him. He has some integrity.

(2) The babies being aborted were more than likely going to be pieces of crap anyway.

So do you support genocide, or are you just a eugenics guy?

---

Whenever I meet someone who is vehemently anti-abortion, I just ask them how many children they have adopted. If they aren't willing to adopt an unwanted child, they should have no say in abortion,  because banning abortion would create so many more children in the foster care system.

2

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

I'm basing that on the fact the mother doesn't want the baby anyway. How good of a life is that baby going to get from a mother that wanted to kill it?

Without abortion, you would see...... 

1. More child murders and abuse situations at the hands of parents who didn't want them. 

2. More kids in foster care (many in horrible or abusive situations.)

3. More crime due to the fact that children grew up feeling unwanted and it messed with their heads, leading to drug addiction, alcoholism or mental illness.

4. More people in the United States, leading to overcrowding and more demand for "things" which would drive up cost. 

5. More deaths due to illegal and unsafe "back alley abortions."

I don't agree with abortion as a means of birth control, but I see it as a necessary evil. People are irresponsible. That's just a fact. No amount of legislation is ever gonna make people voluntarily use birth control every time. Instead of wasting money on pitches to tell people to be abstinent, we need to deal with reality. There will always be tons of unwanted pregnancies and forcing people to carry unwanted babies to term, when they don't want them, only creates more problems. Many of those babies will lead "hellish" lives if they are brought to term. There are some really horrible people in this world. I view abortion as the lesser of two evils.

While there is some truth to what you say I think you are underestimating individuals ability to be responsible. When I used to work in a psych unit it was amazing how much self control even the craziest of people would get when surround by a bunch of big techs. People are irresponsible in large part because they issolated from the consequences of thier actions.

So I think all those things might go up at first, I think they would quickly reverse course once people realised the change was for real.

The better argument for keeping abortion IMO is for babies with congentital defects incompatable with life, rape cases, and of course, fatal risk to mother if completing pregnancy. Abortion should not be used as a form of birth control.

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

1.) I understand biology can be a bit tricky.  If you would like a refresher course on the difference between the process of meosis where we form the gamete cells and mitotic cell division/fission post fertilization then I'm game, but science demonstrates that life begins at conception.  

2.) Again, what's you government sponsored program for men with a fetish or predisposition to become sexually excited by sadistic non-consensual acts against women?  If you aren't going to pay for a government issued concubine to play his sadistic games then you can't possibly consider rape a crime right?  What about pedophilia?  If you aren't going to pretend to be a prepubescent child and service their sexual needs then obviously you have to allow child molestation right?  The very nature of the social contract obligates us all to base normative behavior without the incentive of a cookie or government program to ease the pain or conducting ourselves as law abiding citizens.  

3.) Yes, Foster homes can suck.  Yes, being born to mean parents sucks.  Any idea that its better to have a scalpel to the back of the head and have your brains sucked out is better than being stuck in a crappy foster home with no cable is "just a bunch of nonsense"

4.) As a nation we mitigate irresponsibility and recklessness through a common commitment to personal responsibility and the sanctity of the individual.  We don't subsidize it through mass genocide just because you not every foster home or adoptive parent has unlimited wi-fi!

1. Disagree. It all depends on what your interpretation of "life" is. What you and I refer to as "life", may be very different. 

2. What are you even talking about? Your going off on a wild tangent, trying to relate entirely different subjects that have nothing at all, to do with one another. Please stay on point. 

3. That's your opinion. If I knew I was going to be born into a life where I was unwanted and abused, I'd much rather choose not to be born at all. 

4. Again, I ask you this, because you dodged the question. If we ban abortions, what do we do with all the unwanted children that will now be born into to bad families that didn't want them and into already overcrowded foster homes? In order to effectively oppose something, you need to have a solution to the problem. You're not giving any viable solutions. All you're doing is giving opinions on why you oppose abortions. What does unlimited wi-fi have to do with anything? You sound like a crazy person.

I don't care about your interpretation.  I'll stick with biological definitions. 

I'm illustrating the utter absurdity of your argument.  To say that in order to find behavior criminal that we have to subsidize an alternative is absurd!  Take care of yourself and your offspring.  If u need help grow up and ask don't just kill children.

An easy thing to say when it's not your head on the block.  

I didn't dodge it, I systematically dismantled the very premise.  But to your point, in a brick wall each individual brick and apportion of mortar has the capacity to support its own weight.  Likewise, human beings have the agency and potential to add value to the lives of others and thusvsupport themselves.

---

1. Disagree. It all depends on what your interpretation of "life" is. What you and I refer to as "life", may be very different. 

2. What are you even talking about? Your going off on a wild tangent, trying to relate entirely different subjects that have nothing at all, to do with one another. Please stay on point. 

3. That's your opinion. If I knew I was going to be born into a life where I was unwanted and abused, I'd much rather choose not to be born at all. 

4. Again, I ask you this, because you dodged the question. If we ban abortions, what do we do with all the unwanted children that will now be born into to bad families that didn't want them and into already overcrowded foster homes? In order to effectively oppose something, you need to have a solution to the problem. You're not giving any viable solutions. All you're doing is giving opinions on why you oppose abortions. What does unlimited wi-fi have to do with anything? You sound like a crazy person.

I don't care about your interpretation.  I'll stick with biological definitions. 

I'm illustrating the utter absurdity of your argument.  To say that in order to find behavior criminal that we have to subsidize an alternative is absurd!  Take care of yourself and your offspring.  If u need help grow up and ask don't just kill children.

An easy thing to say when it's not your head on the block.  

I didn't dodge it, I systematically dismantled the very premise.  But to your point, in a brick wall each individual brick and apportion of mortar has the capacity to support its own weight.  Likewise, human beings have the agency and potential to add value to the lives of others and thusvsupport themselves.

Do you ever give a direct answer? You just talk in circles. Be specific. What are specific solutions. If you get rid of abortion, what do you do with all the unwanted kids? It's a simple question. You can't "dismantle that premise". Someone is gonna have to take care of these "new" lives and the foster care system is a mess, as it is. This will be the last time I ask you for a direct answer, not some "off the wall" allegory that has nothing to do with the direct question. If I get that again, I'm just gonna put you on "ignore." Please just answer that simple question in plain English. I really would like to here what you would realistically do with these kids. You can't just say, people should take care of their own responsibilities. As much as I agree with that, we both know it's not realistic. It won't happen in many of those cases, maybe even most cases. There are a lot of cruel people in this world and most times, cruelty and carelessness go hand in hand.

---

I don't care about your interpretation.  I'll stick with biological definitions. 

I'm illustrating the utter absurdity of your argument.  To say that in order to find behavior criminal that we have to subsidize an alternative is absurd!  Take care of yourself and your offspring.  If u need help grow up and ask don't just kill children.

An easy thing to say when it's not your head on the block.  

I didn't dodge it, I systematically dismantled the very premise.  But to your point, in a brick wall each individual brick and apportion of mortar has the capacity to support its own weight.  Likewise, human beings have the agency and potential to add value to the lives of others and thusvsupport themselves.

If you get rid of abortion, what do you do with all the unwanted kids?

---

John Roberts basically is a liberal justice.
That is all.

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

I don't care about your interpretation.  I'll stick with biological definitions. 

I'm illustrating the utter absurdity of your argument.  To say that in order to find behavior criminal that we have to subsidize an alternative is absurd!  Take care of yourself and your offspring.  If u need help grow up and ask don't just kill children.

An easy thing to say when it's not your head on the block.  

I didn't dodge it, I systematically dismantled the very premise.  But to your point, in a brick wall each individual brick and apportion of mortar has the capacity to support its own weight.  Likewise, human beings have the agency and potential to add value to the lives of others and thusvsupport themselves.

Do you ever give a direct answer? You just talk in circles. Be specific. What are specific solutions. If you get rid of abortion, what do you do with all the unwanted kids? It's a simple question. You can't "dismantle that premise". Someone is gonna have to take care of these "new" lives and the foster care system is a mess, as it is. This will be the last time I ask you for a direct answer, not some "off the wall" allegory that has nothing to do with the direct question. If I get that again, I'm just gonna put you on "ignore." Please just answer that simple question in plain English. I really would like to here what you would realistically do with these kids. You can't just say, people should take care of their own responsibilities. As much as I agree with that, we both know it's not realistic. It won't happen in many of those cases, maybe even most cases. There are a lot of cruel people in this world and most times, cruelty and carelessness go hand in hand.

If you don't like the answer don't ask the question!  The simple solution is that parents take care of their own children and those who can't ask for help, like adults, and we work through it as a society.

were roughly talking about 1.5 million children annually.  in that same time we spent 22 trillion dollars on wealth transfer programs.  In addition to that we contributed 2% of our GDP to charity.  It's not a lack of resources, its a lack of accountability and ill be darned if I condone mass genocide to subsidize it.

---

John Roberts basically is a liberal justice.
That is all.

No, he's not. His voting record indicates that he's center-right. He just refuses to allow the Supreme Court to be used as a political tool by either party, and his voting record reflects that position.

---

John Roberts basically is a liberal justice.
That is all.

No, he's not. His voting record indicates that he's center-right. He just refuses to allow the Supreme Court to be used as a political tool by either party, and his voting record reflects that position.

Then he's a liberal.  The perception of the court is meaningless to the law.  He swears an oath to preserve protect and defend the constitution of the united states, not the opinion of the Harvard Faculty Lounge.  to the case in question, if we want to have a broader constitutional discussion about licensure, the right to pursue commerce and state over-reach then have at it.  I don't have a problem sitting at that table.  But under the current ittiration of jurisprudence to assert that a state doesn't have the right to sanction the credentials required to perform a medical procedure is insane.  The only thing more insane would be to based that idea on the idea that one individual has the right to arbitrarily kill another individual because Oprah Said So.

---

Hmm - can't discuss religion, but can discuss abortion? Seems to be getting pretty close to the same thing. What's the foundation of one's thoughts in opposing abortion?

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Probably more of a science thing.

Pro abortionists (and the loons who believe there are more than two genders, climate scammers, etc.) are all more anti-science than religion.

Anti-science = cool, religion = not cool

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Hmm - can't discuss religion, but can discuss abortion? Seems to be getting pretty close to the same thing. What's the foundation of one's thoughts in opposing abortion?

The same as the opposition to murder.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

John Roberts basically is a liberal justice.
That is all.

The reason the left is blind to this, is that they perceive themselves as the center of all being.

The center of the universe, center of all thought, and the center of the political spectrum.  Perhaps the cornerstone of the alternate reality they've manufactured for themselves.

In truth, they are way left and moving farther left at an accelerating rate.  (Yet will look out the window and say, "I've moved nowhere!")

Same with the right.  The right as a whole has moved left of center over time as well - in turn pulled to the left by the political climate as well.  There isn't much that separates the parties, at least... the career politicians in the parties.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."