(And you all fucking SUCK.)
| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
StarrEise |
|||
|
201 baby killers
(And you all fucking SUCK.) |
|||
SonOfAbraxas |
|||
buckitex wrote: I wouldn't put ALL religious people in that category. The Catholic Church is famous for the contraception belief, but I can't think of any regular ol' protestant denomination that is completely against it. I just wanted to point that out because I think the amount of stereotyping done to religion in this forum always seems to go unchecked, yet stereotype liberals or conservatives and all hell breaks loose and we get 20million posts about how not everyone is the same - blah blah blah. |
|||
Atomic Plunger |
|||
|
|
|||
buckitex |
|||
|
I always thought that too APG, but I've met alot of Baptists and other Evangelicals that feel that way as well.....it's scary to me because I find it
just another way to make their women "submissive".
|
|||
frisbeehead |
|||
|
The churches against abortion also tend to be against gays, and gays don't exactly fall into the "at risk" category for it.
|
|||
kdo2 |
|||
frisbeehead wrote: The statistical argument brought forth by the authors of Freakonomics is hard to argue against. It seems likely that abortions seem to be connected to drops in crime. Theres an advantage. But from that, is it right to kill babies because we don't want to risk them becoming criminals? Thus not giving any a chance? A great method to take the easy way out of preventing a crime rise. |
|||
meatball77 |
|||
APG wrote: Generally. However, a large group of conservatives feel that kids should never be taught about birth control because that encourages them to have sex. Sex should never ever be talked about outside of marriage except to tell kids not to do it and it's really shameful. One of the sex ed programs in some schools focuses on the kids learning about how horrible and shameful they're going to feel if they have sex. Then they tell them that condoms aren't very effective. |
|||
buckitex |
|||
|
Fo the record, I did not say all religious people, I said a majority of those with pro-life beliefs. I grew up Presbyterian, it wasn't the case there, not
even close.
ETA-Yes, What meatball said, she just said it much better. |
|||
APG |
|||
buckitex wrote:That whole concept is based on the "be fruitful and multiply" command given to Adam and Eve in Genesis. At that time, there weren't too many people around. God must have sprinkled some dust somewhere else because Cain and Able found wives. Still, the idea was to populate the earth. There are 6.5 billion people on the rock right now. I don't claim to be able to read God's mind but I sort of think he'd give us a Mission Accomplished on the whole fruitful thing. |
|||
meatball77 |
|||
kdo2 wrote: Because young unwed mothers are more to be poor. Kids who grow up in poverty are more likely to be drawn into crime. And also likely to follow in their mothers footsteps and get pregnant when they're young and unmarried. Oh, and the anti-abortion community has been very against the Morning After Pill. Talk about something that prevents abortions. |
|||
CBRetriever |
|||
|
weren't we also supposed to be stewards of the earth? we've been doing a piss poor job of it for the last couple hundred years.
|
|||
ohboy |
|||
"But from that, is it right to kill babies because we don't want to risk them becoming criminals?" i'm envisioning assassins in hospital nurseries, taking out the bad seeds. |
|||
SonOfAbraxas |
|||
|
Yeah, sorry about saying "all", buckitex ... I thought about that after I posted it. You did say a large majority, not all.
|
|||
Mister Peepers |
|||
CBRetriever wrote:But not the past 30 Link You probably buy into the man-made global warming hoax. |
|||
ObservingEgo |
|||
|
Whoopee ... I'm going to get my abortion now; see ya later!!! : ) : ) |
|||
kdo2 |
|||
meatball77 wrote: Yes obviously in the cases that it is a poor unwed mother the child's environment is more likely to encourage negative and possibly criminal behavior. But still is it worth it to not take a risk and let the child live? Or is it "for the greater good" to abort them? Getting rid of some potentially good people so that there won't be any risk involved? |
|||
frisbeehead |
|||
|
Why don't we have every potential life saved then? There's a slippery slope here.
|
|||
kooyah |
|||
|
Let's not forget that the only chance some babies will have is the chance to be stillborn or die in their parents' arms right after childbirth, thus
causing them even more grief (and costing them more money) than an abortion would. Clearly, though, some people think that those parents should have to deal
with that.
I'm sure if abortion were made illegal than NOBODY would be having them anymore and the world would be a much better place for everyone. |
|||
CBRetriever |
|||
|
no, I'm buying into:
the pollutants into rivers from third world factories and overuse of chemical fertilizers atmospheric pollution from smokestacks, automobiles and chemical plants producing more offspring than the earth can feed - saw some interesting articles on this recently the immense reduction of native species and the disaster of introducing some species into new parts (nutria and kudzu are good cases in point here) I'm not entirely convinced one way or the other about global warming since I'm aware that the earth has warmed and cooled multiple times in its history |
|||
ObservingEgo |
|||
|
It was a HUGE MISTAKE to blaspheme Dr. Paul Ehrlich!!! |
|||