Does pro-abortion have a real defense?

[Isaac Death]

Thugs throughout history have advocated social re-engineering society through brutal force and other coercive means. And, always the decision of who gets re-engineered is made by a tiny minority who have gained power through the same methods. Most well-known might be the Nazis or Stalinists, but they weren't the first groups to attempt it and won't be the last.

Will you be among the next group who tries, or maybe sit by idle while a new one does?

Not withstanding the logistical problem of sterilizing "dumb" people, Western history beginning with the Renaissance through the French Revolution and right up to the present epoch has advocated for the rights of all humanity. This includes the so-called dumb people, who, as it often turns out, aren't dumb at all but are oppressed to the point of being practically isolated from education and economic gain.

Are you going to throw in your lot with the latest bunch of thugs who think they can go against all history and all that is right? I don't think so.

 

[anathelia]

Thugs throughout history have advocated social re-engineering society through brutal force and other coercive means. And, always the decision of who gets re-engineered is made by a tiny minority who have gained power through the same methods. Most well-known might be the Nazis or Stalinists, but they weren't the first groups to attempt it and won't be the last.

Will you be among the next group who tries, or maybe sit by idle while a new one does?

Not withstanding the logistical problem of sterilizing "dumb" people, Western history beginning with the Renaissance through the French Revolution and right up to the present epoch has advocated for the rights of all humanity. This includes the so-called dumb people, who, as it often turns out, aren't dumb at all but are oppressed to the point of being practically isolated from education and economic gain.

Are you going to throw in your lot with the latest bunch of thugs who think they can go against all history and all that is right? I don't think so.

If anyone here actually legitimately supports the idea of social re-engineering through sterilization of a specific subset of people, then I don't know some of the people here as well as I thought I did. I doubt anyone actually supports the idea.

 

[Isaac Death]

If anyone here actually legitimately supports the idea of social re-engineering through sterilization of a specific subset of people, then I don't know some of the people here as well as I thought I did. I doubt anyone actually supports the idea.

Many a true word is spoken in jest. But, if you are right then my rhetorical rejoinder won't be taken personally and should not offend anyone's delicate sensibilities.

 

[All Else Failed]

Thugs throughout history have advocated social re-engineering society through brutal force and other coercive means. And, always the decision of who gets re-engineered is made by a tiny minority who have gained power through the same methods. Most well-known might be the Nazis or Stalinists, but they weren't the first groups to attempt it and won't be the last.

Will you be among the next group who tries, or maybe sit by idle while a new one does?

Not withstanding the logistical problem of sterilizing "dumb" people, Western history beginning with the Renaissance through the French Revolution and right up to the present epoch has advocated for the rights of all humanity. This includes the so-called dumb people, who, as it often turns out, aren't dumb at all but are oppressed to the point of being practically isolated from education and economic gain.

Are you going to throw in your lot with the latest bunch of thugs who think they can go against all history and all that is right? I don't think so.

It does not have to be thuggish at all. What needs to happen is a reorganization of good people into small communities away from cities to let them breed.


I mean, have fun with low-quality human beings who are literally a waste of life if you want to.

 

[CityGirl]

In my readings today, I came across this...


How could it possibly be "bad" for an abortion doctor to send children to Heaven? Standing before God and explaining his earthly actions, an abortion doctor could say: "Everybody I aborted is in Heaven, right? And of those I aborted, if I hadn't done so, some of them would be in Hell, right? So how, exactly, was it wrong for me to perform abortions?" How could God answer this doctor?

 

[alice in chains]

Most of those "pro-abortioners" as you unkindly re-named them are not in favor of abortion. They favor freedom of choice. Big difference.

If a black person started a thread on a subject related to being black would you insist on referring to black persons as "negroes"? Of course not (I hope), because the current word that most blacks want to use for being black, is black, not negro.

Sorry if my choice of naming offended you but I donnot nit-pick over semantics; calling it freedom of choice in my opinion is sugar-coating the nitty gritty.

 

[HK]

Sorry if my choice of naming offended you but I donnot nit-pick over semantics; calling it freedom of choice in my opinion is sugar-coating the nitty gritty.

It's inaccurate. I'm in favour of someone having the choice to have an abortion, hence the term pro-choice. However, I am not pro-abortion - if I became pregnant then I would only abort if I couldn't raise the child or it had a serious disability. Most pro-choice people are exactly that, in favour of giving women the option. Calling it 'pro-abortion' gives the entirely wrong impression that these people are practically rooting for women to have more abortions.

 

[JuggsBunny]

HK is exactly right. I'm not pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice. It is not for me to make decisions for someone else.

Personally, if I got pregnant, I'd get an abortion. However - you'd never KNOW about it, unless I told you. Why??? Because that is a personal decision and I'm able to get one legally. Quite simply, it's a choice I opted to make and it is between me and my doctor.

 

[alice in chains]

It's inaccurate. I'm in favour of someone having the choice to have an abortion, hence the term pro-choice. However, I am not pro-abortion - if I became pregnant then I would only abort if I couldn't raise the child or it had a serious disability. Most pro-choice people are exactly that, in favour of giving women the option. Calling it 'pro-abortion' gives the entirely wrong impression that these people are practically rooting for women to have more abortions.

I think both interpretations are correct in reality; whichever is chose for whichever biased side speaking.

 

[HK]

I think both interpretations are correct in reality; whichever is chose for whichever biased side speaking.

I see where you're coming from, but it's still incorrect. Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion. Not to mention, people using the term pro-abortion are almost always doing it purposefully to try and demonise people who are pro-choice.

Just to be fair, this happens on both sides. Some call the pro-life people 'anti-choice' instead, because it sounds worse. It's not right for either side to be doing it. Fuck, if you're going to insist on using the term pro-abortion, at least put the word 'rights' on the end.

 

[alice in chains]

it's only natural to demonize something you're against

i wouldn't be surprised if i was called 'anti-choice' lol...becuz i am to be honest lol

 

[alice in chains]

IQ doesn't really have anything to do with intelligence though, does it? Just because someone has a low IQ does not mean they aren't intelligent or vice verse.

It really does. Ultimately, they're designed to measure how quickly you learn and how analytical you can think. With time, any dumbass can learn calculus. The real relevant question is how long does it take.

 

[anathelia]

It really does. Ultimately, they're designed to measure how quickly you learn and how analytical you can think. With time, any dumbass can learn calculus. The real relevant question is how long does it take.

Perhaps it has relevance to a specific subset of intelligence, but intelligence as a whole? I doubt it. Just because a test tells me I will learn things quickly in school does not mean that I will actually learn at a quicker pace than anyone else. If I'm lazy or don't apply myself, I won't magically be smarter simply because I have a higher IQ. There can be a correlation in that people with higher IQs tend to be more intelligent people. But correlation does not equal causation, and it could just be that people with a higher IQ tend to be harder working. I know several people who don't fit under the IQ=intelligence umbrella.

And being book smart is only half the battle, as it were, anyway.

 

[alice in chains]

well it's the results of the test are of course researched assumptions...as everything is in psychology, an ultimate assumption.

so it's as accurate as an artificial test can be i guess

 

[MainerMikeBrown]

If I got a girl pregnant and she decided to have an abortion, I don't think I'd ever get over it. There's nothing worse than losing a child, born or not.