49 million to five

M

mrmadcow

Well-Known Member
CrackerJax said:
A child is an economic minus, not a plus. the mother is a plus. You keep the mother over the child.
Click to expand...
what a sad world you live in when you see children as a minus

ChChoda said:
It's not that abortion should or should not be legal, that should be for the constituents of a state to decide, it's that abortion should not be glorified as a courageous, prudent, and innocuous act. Public education, supported by taxes exacted at the point of a gun, is to blame....
Click to expand...
& you thought my post was good -never heard it said better
Mindmelted said:
Can these so called lifes live removed from the womb bye themselves.
The answer to this question is no 99.9% of the time.
So we would have 49 million more people in this fucked up world.
Click to expand...
can a 3 yr old survive all by themself? the world may be fucked up but many are trying to make it better for all.if you dont like it or feel that we have too many,feel free to leave anytime.

PadawanBater said:
So if these aborted fetuses' grew up to be homosexual, what would you guys have to say?
Click to expand...
what??? are you waiting for a conservative to say they would be better off dead?? go piss up a rope!! sorry but few conservatives are as dumb as that.while homosexuality may be a sin in my book,it is not a reason to execute someone. fact is,according to my God, its not my place to judge at all. something You might have learned if you bothered getting the message from the horses mouth(the Bible),rather than listening to the other end.(people like bikeracer)
please dont bother to respond here as this thread is about abortion,not your deviant sex life.
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
mrmadcow said:
what??? are you waiting for a conservative to say they would be better off dead?? go piss up a rope!! sorry but few conservatives are as dumb as that.while homosexuality may be a sin in my book,it is not a reason to execute someone. fact is,according to my God, its not my place to judge at all. something You might have learned if you bothered getting the message from the horses mouth(the Bible),rather than listening to the other end.(people like bikeracer)
please dont bother to respond here as this thread is about abortion,not your deviant sex life.
Click to expand...
I guess you missed the part in the bible where it says to stone homosexuals...
 
DEVO

DEVO

Active Member
[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/80x_pcabaq0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/80x_pcabaq0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> [/youtube]
 
jrh72582

jrh72582

Well-Known Member
CrackerJax said:
so you gonna lock the women up for getting pregnant? What's next?

The only reason ppl get upset is because the church tells them too.

Pssst ... the church is making it up.

If there is a sin committed, it is between that woman and HER maker. It's not ur place to judge. It's her body, it's her choice, not urs. It's her "risk", not urs.

I'd rather a woman get a safe procedure, rather than an unsafe one in a back alley.

Throw out the Bible and the issue disappears.
Click to expand...
Holy shit! Cracker and I agree! Ain't that a sight :-P
 
M

mrmadcow

Well-Known Member
PadawanBater said:
I guess you missed the part in the bible where it says to stone homosexuals...
Click to expand...
typical liberal,take 1 line out of context to determine the whole book is bad.I am surprised you haven't attacked my spelling.(yet)
leviticus was written a few thousand years ago in an eviroment you cannot comprehend.while the penalties may seem harsh in todays world,the consequences for allowing such actions were worse.many tribes simply vanished in the dessert but the jews not only survived,they thrived.every law had a reason (& most are not apparent today)& like it or not, homosexual acts between men bring on diseases they couldn't understand or treat. open the book again,you will see that sex acts between MEN where forbiden, but neither man nor women could have sex w/ an animal.So lesbian acts were ok-Does this make it a little better in your modern progay mindset?
adultry was also punished by death,when you live in a small closeknit group,everyone must trust each other w/ their very lives,hard to do if the guy next to you banged your wife & you resent that.
Is "an eye for an eye" harsh by todays standard?at the time it was novel in the fact it was merciful compared to what was considered justice back then.

sorry to get off topic but people who judge the past while wearing 21st century glasses annoy me to no end & while pb is so entrenched in his liberal/progay stance that he wont bother listening to anything I say,some liberals have a brain & will learn (& become conservatives) ...mc
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
mrmadcow said:
typical liberal,take 1 line out of context to determine the whole book is bad.I am surprised you haven't attacked my spelling.(yet)
leviticus was written a few thousand years ago in an eviroment you cannot comprehend.while the penalties may seem harsh in todays world,the consequences for allowing such actions were worse.many tribes simply vanished in the dessert but the jews not only survived,they thrived.every law had a reason (& most are not apparent today)& like it or not, homosexual acts between men bring on diseases they couldn't understand or treat. open the book again,you will see that sex acts between MEN where forbiden, but neither man nor women could have sex w/ an animal.So lesbian acts were ok-Does this make it a little better in your modern progay mindset?
adultry was also punished by death,when you live in a small closeknit group,everyone must trust each other w/ their very lives,hard to do if the guy next to you banged your wife & you resent that.
Is "an eye for an eye" harsh by todays standard?at the time it was novel in the fact it was merciful compared to what was considered justice back then.

sorry to get off topic but people who judge the past while wearing 21st century glasses annoy me to no end & while pb is so entrenched in his liberal/progay stance that he wont bother listening to anything I say,some liberals have a brain & will learn (& become conservatives) ...mc
Click to expand...

It's only justified to you because it's your God who was doing all the terrible shit. God can do no wrong to some of you believers. Let my friend Dusty explain it for you;

[youtube]AIasNuUpsgI[/youtube]

If your "it was a different time period, laws were different back then" was true, why doesn't the same ring true for Allah and Islam? (again, I bring in the comparison to Islam because you guys never consider it) If the exact same shit happened in Islam it would be bad, but turn it around and say it was Jesus and his followers and it's allllll good! That's some bullshit. Not to mention terrible logic.

You're sick if you think any of that is justified, and even sicker if you worship the bastard you think is responsible. Fuck the bible.
 
M

mrmadcow

Well-Known Member
I guess the difference is most christians are not stoning people today or advocating it.
no rational person holds Allah in contempt for actions committed by his followers 1000 yrs ago.
now go & find some lunitic still preaching hate in jesus' name to hold up and claim that even thou 99% of christians are against his message,all are condemned because 1 person said something stupid. Jeff Dahmer was a gay serial killer, does that make all Gay men evil? look at your 1st few posts in this thread.you spew hatred and contempt for all who dont agree w/ you.based on your responses,I ASSUME you are a gay athiest. are all gay athiests full of such hate & anger?
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
mrmadcow said:
I guess the difference is most christians are not stoning people today or advocating it.
no rational person holds Allah in contempt for actions committed by his followers 1000 yrs ago.
now go & find some lunitic still preaching hate in jesus' name to hold up and claim that even thou 99% of christians are against his message,all are condemned because 1 person said something stupid. Jeff Dahmer was a gay serial killer, does that make all Gay men evil? look at your 1st few posts in this thread.you spew hatred and contempt for all who dont agree w/ you.based on your responses,I ASSUME you are a gay athiest. are all gay athiests full of such hate & anger?
Click to expand...
...miss the point completely I guess then.

The passive belief that those 99% of believers (not only Christians) have is equally as dangerous as the 1% that murder abortion doctors. It's them that allow this behavior to exist. Without the passive support group that makes up the majority of those that claim some higher power, half these lunatics wouldn't have committed the crazy things they did.

And Dahmer was born again in prison, fyi.

Christianity, like all organized religion is dangerous. Would you give a retard a 357 Magnum? Of course not. That's exactly what you're doing.

Heterosexual atheist right here buddy. But I proudly stand up in defense of discrimination against my homosexual brothers and sisters.
 
M

mrmadcow

Well-Known Member
passive support? go into any church in america and announce you want to kill abortion doctors.
I guess "The passive belief that those 99% of " gays are equally dangerous because "It's them that allow this behavior to exist. Without the passive support group that makes up the majority of those that are gay, Dahmer wouldn't have committed the crazy things (he) did"
now should I find an atheist that commited horrible atrocities and blame all atheist? or maybe a liberal? or an eviromentalist?
saying Al Gore is responsible for the unibombers atrocities is about the same as blaming all christians for the act of 1 unbalanced idiot.
again to paraphrase you
"If the exact same shit was done by the right it would be bad, but turn it around and say it was the left and it's allllll good! That's some bullshit. Not to mention terrible logic."

 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
mrmadcow said:
passive support? go into any church in america and announce you want to kill abortion doctors.
I guess "The passive belief that those 99% of " gays are equally dangerous because "It's them that allow this behavior to exist. Without the passive support group that makes up the majority of those that are gay, Dahmer wouldn't have committed the crazy things (he) did"
now should I find an atheist that commited horrible atrocities and blame all atheist? or maybe a liberal? or an eviromentalist?
saying Al Gore is responsible for the unibombers atrocities is about the same as blaming all christians for the act of 1 unbalanced idiot.
again to paraphrase you
"If the exact same shit was done by the right it would be bad, but turn it around and say it was the left and it's allllll good! That's some bullshit. Not to mention terrible logic."
Click to expand...
You're missing the point again.

Go find an atheist who committed some terrible act, your analogy fails at the door because his disbelief in a god wasn't the reason he committed it, now was it. On the other hand, how many of your Christian brothers and sisters committed the act BECAUSE they were directly influenced by their religion?
 
M

mrmadcow

Well-Known Member
so Al gore is responsible for the unibombers actions?
could it be the athiest acted evilly because he believed that no higher power would judge him? does that make you responsible?
you are missing the point.
to judge a group by the actions of 1 is dumb,can't you agree w/ that?
especially when the group condemns the action
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
jrh72582 said:
Holy shit! Cracker and I agree! Ain't that a sight :-P
Click to expand...

We're closer than you think on social issues. It's the "how to get there" where we part ways.



Mr mad cow :lol: ... I didn't say children were a "minus" on a personal level ... but as an economic model, yes, they are a minus. They have yet to produce anything.

So far points seem to slip by you, and I didn't think I was being obtuse.
 
M

mrmadcow

Well-Known Member
CrackerJax said:
.. I didn't say children were a "minus" on a personal level ... but as an economic model, yes, they are a minus. They have yet to produce anything.
So far points seem to slip by you, and I didn't think I was being obtuse.
Click to expand...
Sorry if you were offended.you were not obtuse, I feel children are a future economic plus.(& not all mothers are a current economic plus).
your plants growing in the closet are a economic minus today as they cost you in time & money now but over time,they will be a plus when you consider how much you spent to grow verses buying on the street.Hopefully,most children will be a plus in the long run & worth the time & money we invest.
my father(&his sister) took care of my grandfather when he was old.I am now starting to help take care of my father as he is getting old.hopefully my daughters will do the same for me in time if needed.& even if not,I dont like to think of anyone as a minus.(with the exception of those who wont do for themselves)
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
mrmadcow said:
so Al gore is responsible for the unibombers actions?
could it be the athiest acted evilly because he believed that no higher power would judge him? does that make you responsible?
you are missing the point.
to judge a group by the actions of 1 is dumb,can't you agree w/ that?
especially when the group condemns the action
Click to expand...

I agree. But the only thing atheists have in common is their disbelief in God. Nothing else. The link between believers doing crazy things specifically because of their religion and their dogmatic faith can't be ignored. Without such a belief, the act would not have happened.

Not to mention the ratio is much worse with believers, prison rates, murder rates, rape rates, suicide rates, all of them, there's more believers doing them than there are atheists. What do you have to say about that?
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
mrmadcow said:
Sorry if you were offended.you were not obtuse, I feel children are a future economic plus.(& not all mothers are a current economic plus).
your plants growing in the closet are a economic minus today as they cost you in time & money now but over time,they will be a plus when you consider how much you spent to grow verses buying on the street.Hopefully,most children will be a plus in the long run & worth the time & money we invest.
my father(&his sister) took care of my grandfather when he was old.I am now starting to help take care of my father as he is getting old.hopefully my daughters will do the same for me in time if needed.& even if not,I dont like to think of anyone as a minus.(with the exception of those who wont do for themselves)
Click to expand...
Just speaking economically here .. :wink: .. children have the POTENTIAL to be an economic plus ... at some point. But we don't know that child will ever live long enough to produce. the mother is producing right now.

They don't compare economically at all. From a supply side as well, there's no shortage of children. It's the opposite.
 
ChChoda

ChChoda

Well-Known Member
Kids, like marriage, focus the energy of parents, young men particularly, to produce. Instead of loafing around looking for ass, they're busting ass, working. Unless they didn't commit to the child, and the mother. This increased production, if they decide to support their families to the best of their abilities, allows parents to spend exorbitantly on children, especially around this time of year. Try telling Toys'R Us kids are an economic negative. Entire industries revolve around children. Kids ARE the economy, in a broad sense. Before you can be a producer, you have to be born.
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
yes, ur busting ur arse because you have helpless beings at home who cannot fend for themselves. We call them children. But you don't put the safety of an unborn child over the mother.

The mother can produce more children later, and she can produce economically RIGHT NOW.

That's the economic reality of child rearing.
 
ChChoda

ChChoda

Well-Known Member
As for not putting the safety of an unborn child over the mother, sure. But many mothers to be, wouldn't agree. They will sacrifice all for the safety of the child, born, or otherwise. Motherly instinct, if you will.

As for the economical benefit of the mother argument, you assume the potential mother to be is producing, right now. She could be. Or, she could be in college, receiving federal and state funds to attend. Or, she could be on welfare. And... Maybe a child would ultimately inhibit her earning potential. Maybe a child would inspire growth and expansion.

It seems the only time abortion becomes an economic argument is when the federal government is directly involved in the outcome. Otherwise, it would be solely about morality, with the arbiter of morality being the individual citizen inhabiting the separate states, free to live where their morality is mirrored. And the different outcomes from the different experiments would be available for all to see. There would be no need for economic arguments.
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
ChChoda said:
As for not putting the safety of an unborn child over the mother, sure. But many mothers to be, wouldn't agree. They will sacrifice all for the safety of the child, born, or otherwise. Motherly instinct, if you will.

As for the economical benefit of the mother argument, you assume the potential mother to be is producing, right now. She could be. Or, she could be in college, receiving federal and state funds to attend. Or, she could be on welfare. And... Maybe a child would ultimately inhibit her earning potential. Maybe a child would inspire growth and expansion.

It seems the only time abortion becomes an economic argument is when the federal government is directly involved in the outcome. Otherwise, it would be solely about morality, with the arbiter of morality being the individual citizen inhabiting the separate states, free to live where their morality is mirrored. And the different outcomes from the different experiments would be available for all to see. There would be no need for economic arguments.
Click to expand...
What is your stance exactly? Criminalizing abortions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top