Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Jan 22, 2011 1:56:10 GMT -5
Who cares who created it? It has become a useful means of birth control in the United States because we've done such a good job of terrifying everyone into thinking that sex is bad.. so if you have sex.. be sure not to tell anyone.. but if you do get pregnant - drive hours away so that nobody in your own town knows, 'cause premarital sex is evil and if you've sinned you're going to HELL! Plus all your neighbors will mock you and whisper about you and look down on you. And birth control is bad too, because it means you're having sex out of wedlock, because we all know that if you're having sex while in wedlock that the child is there by the GRACE OF GOD!!! But if it's out of wedlock, then it's punishment for your sins and you must bear it. Everything can be boiled down to economics, yes, but it can also be boiled down to ridiculous ideas of what is moral. And I love how you say the "Boomers did it to themselves" as if they're the only generation that cares about women having the right to choose. That's funny
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Jan 22, 2011 1:57:31 GMT -5
I might also add that forms of abortion have been around for centuries, long before eugenics It only became an issue when men started using abortion for their own purposes.. and then when they realized that women had already been having abortions they all freaked out and decided they had to legislate against it.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 2:02:59 GMT -5
Who cares who created it? It has become a useful means of birth control in the United States because we've done such a good job of terrifying everyone into thinking that sex is bad.. so if you have sex.. be sure not to tell anyone.. but if you do get pregnant - drive hours away so that nobody in your own town knows, 'cause premarital sex is evil and if you've sinned you're going to HELL! Plus all your neighbors will mock you and whisper about you and look down on you. And birth control is bad too, because it means you're having sex out of wedlock, because we all know that if you're having sex while in wedlock that the child is there by the GRACE OF GOD!!! But if it's out of wedlock, then it's punishment for your sins and you must bear it. It matters very much who concocted it. The problem most eugenists had with Hitler was the fact that he was so brash about his methodologies. George Bernard Shaw, the eugenists, and other Fabians talked about it on record. By their deeds ye shall know them. Birth control's primary purpose is to weed out the unfit in a race, ethnicity, mentally handicapped, etc. The founder of the birth control movement has said this in no uncertain terms. Everything can be boiled down to economics, yes, but it can also be boiled down to ridiculous ideas of what is moral. And I love how you say the "Boomers did it to themselves" as if they're the only generation that cares about women having the right to choose. That's funny How many abortionists have thought about the economic ramifications? My guess is about as much as they have anything else of economic import. Ask yourself why the borders aren't closed, and in doing so, look at the only reason America's birth rate is not declining as rapidly as Eastern Europe and Russia. It is a fact that Boomers aborted more children than any other generation in human history. A society cannot properly function if it does not have the productive capacity to continue. You didn't really think our economic decline was unpredictable, did you? There are many factors, not the least of which is unsustainable welfare due to previous decisions made by eugenists.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 2:03:40 GMT -5
I might also add that forms of abortion have been around for centuries, long before eugenics It only became an issue when men started using abortion for their own purposes.. and then when they realized that women had already been having abortions they all freaked out and decided they had to legislate against it. Abortions have become the norm, not the exception. Therein lies the difference.
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Jan 22, 2011 2:05:02 GMT -5
Honestly, that's probably a good thing. There were too many boomers.. if they had all bred there'd be too many damn Americans, period.
And I'll let you get to reading my second post so you can realize you don't know as much as you think you know if you think abortion was invented by Eugenists.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 2:08:10 GMT -5
Honestly, that's probably a good thing. There were too many boomers.. if they had all bred there'd be too many damn Americans, period.
And I'll let you get to reading my second post so you can realize you don't know as much as you think you know if you think abortion was invented by Eugenists. I read your second post and it can't be directed at me because I never said it. Everything I claimed to be a fact is a fact and I can provide more links tomorrow if need be. IMHO you all are either OK with eugenics, or don't know how the birth control movement started.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jan 22, 2011 2:08:32 GMT -5
Not to worry. Hispanics will save America! Whites projected to be the minority by around 2050. Hence, lots more good ole taxpayers.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 2:10:01 GMT -5
Not to worry. Hispanics will save America! Whites projected to be the minority by around 2050. Hence, lots more good ole taxpayers. Yes, America will be a second/third world country in no less than 20 years, given the current state of affairs. Even with the Hispanic birth rate we are still only at 2.1 children per family. That is barely enough to sustain a culture. Read Harry Dent's demographics studies.
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Jan 22, 2011 2:11:09 GMT -5
THE NORM??? Do you have any idea what the statistics actually are on abortion? 2% of women have them... that leaves 98% who are wandering happily along without them.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 2:12:31 GMT -5
THE NORM??? Do you have any idea what the statistics actually are on abortion? 2% of women have them... that leaves 98% who are wandering happily along without them. It is the norm among the sub-population which has/had them, yes. And yes, I know of what I speak. I study this stuff in economic terms because I enjoy it.
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Jan 22, 2011 2:14:57 GMT -5
Abortion.. a method of birth control for thousands of years... was concocted by Eugenists. Huh.
More like Eugenists just realized it was a great way to enact their evil plans to get rid of colored folks. And though I do know that Eugenists did use abortion to do really evil things, in this case the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. I can be a-ok with abortion and not a-ok with Eugenics.
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Jan 22, 2011 2:15:40 GMT -5
The sub-population... care to explain who you believe this sub-population is?
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 2:16:55 GMT -5
Abortion.. a method of birth control for thousands of years... was concocted by Eugenists. Huh.
More like Eugenists just realized it was a great way to enact their evil plans to get rid of colored folks. And though I do know that Eugenists did use abortion to do really evil things, in this case the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. I can be a-ok with abortion and not a-ok with Eugenics. You must be suffering from reading comprehension issues. Please reread what I wrote if you want to continue this debate. And with respect to eugenists, you don't know of what you speak. It was directed at all "unfit", especially those with mental handicaps. Abortion today has been foisted upon the mob as a form of birth control. It is as much or more an economic issue than anything else, eugenics aside.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 2:17:41 GMT -5
The sub-population... care to explain who you believe this sub-population is? If you know so much about this topic, surely you know the statistics to which I refer.
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Jan 22, 2011 2:28:35 GMT -5
Oh I'm sorry.. "Eugenists pushed it as the prevalent means of birth control", except that we already know that it isn't the prevalent means of birth control. Only 2% of women per year have an abortion, the rest of them are using some other form of birth control.
Now, if you want to say that Eugenists pushed birth control PERIOD, that would be a completely different argument and there may very well be some truth in it, but guess what?
Women don't really give a flying fudge, because it means that the choice of whether or not to have a child was taken out of the hands of their menfolk and their god and into their OWN!!
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Jan 22, 2011 2:29:52 GMT -5
And, to be honest, there are a bunch of different sub populations (abortion not being specific to any single group).. so which one did you want to pull out of your butt?
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jan 22, 2011 2:41:46 GMT -5
Dr. George Tiller’s political assassination is result of rabid anti-abortion harassmentDr. Tiller’s crime was not that he killed children — which he did not — but that he brought liberty and health to women. He saved their lives and futures. That’s why every doctor in America who does abortions lives under a death threat. As I said in 1993, after the assassination of Dr. Gunn, we can only hope that Dr. Tiller’s tragic and senseless murder will wake up the American people to the radical Christian right’s determination to take absolute power in our society and to control its vital institutions. The main difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles. Also, the Taliban wants a fascist Islamic theocracy, whereas the American anti-abortion movement wants a fascist Christian theocracy.More: www.coloradostatesman.com/content/991110-dr-george-tiller%3Fs-political-assassination-result-rabid-anti-abortion-harassment
|
|
The Home 6
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:24:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,906
Location: Bourbon Country
Favorite Drink: Wine. With a wine chaser.
|
Post by The Home 6 on Jan 22, 2011 7:40:11 GMT -5
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,495
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 22, 2011 14:05:30 GMT -5
Wow, that's just too cold and uninformed to even respond to. You apparently think all aborted children and their mothers were healthy. Too bad that isn't the reality. Fact: Tens of millions were aborted. Fact: Most of them would have been taxpayers.[/quote] How did you come to this conclusion? Do you have any information to back up this claim?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,476
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 22, 2011 14:11:43 GMT -5
Wow, that's just too cold and uninformed to even respond to. You apparently think all aborted children and their mothers were healthy. Too bad that isn't the reality. Fact: Tens of millions were aborted. Fact: Most of them would have been taxpayers.[/quote] How did you come to this conclusion? Do you have any information to back up this claim? All of them would have been dependent children for sixteen to twenty-two years or so. They would have required classroom space and teachers. How much more taxpayer money would we have needed to provide this?
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,553
|
Post by chiver78 on Jan 22, 2011 14:19:34 GMT -5
Fact: Tens of millions were aborted. Fact: Most of them would have been taxpayers.[/quote] How did you come to this conclusion? Do you have any information to back up this claim? All of them would have been dependent children for sixteen to twenty-two years or so. They would have required classroom space and teachers. How much more taxpayer money would we have needed to provide this? I'll take it one step further - I'd venture that a fair amount of them would be born to women that were not in a position to support these children themselves. they would then be receiving assistance in addition to spending all those resources getting educated. all this before they find jobs and start paying back to the system. it's funny how much respect the right has for the unborn, but once the child is actually alive and breathing on its own, how quickly they turn their backs on ensuring that child is raised well.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,495
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 22, 2011 14:25:06 GMT -5
Bingo! We have a winner! And that's assuming they complete their basic education and find a job.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 14:26:09 GMT -5
bills, chiver, could you please provide any empirical evidence that the 45 million aborted would have been net consumers over their lifetimes? That's what you're basically arguing.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 14:28:55 GMT -5
Bingo! We have a winner! And that's assuming they complete their basic education and find a job. Again, please provide any evidence that the bulk of our society is net consumptive, in economic terms. This is very simple to do. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 14:29:42 GMT -5
Wow, that's just too cold and uninformed to even respond to. You apparently think all aborted children and their mothers were healthy. Too bad that isn't the reality. Fact: Tens of millions were aborted. Fact: Most of them would have been taxpayers.[/quote] How did you come to this conclusion? Do you have any information to back up this claim? Uhh yes, understanding of basic economics and govt. If our society was net consumptive we would have had no govt. decades ago, because all govts. are net consumptive.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,495
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 22, 2011 14:29:48 GMT -5
I asked you a question first trae. How about answering that then I will answer yours.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 14:31:41 GMT -5
I asked you a question first trae. How about answering that then I will answer yours. It's basic economics. Govts. are net consumers. The public are net producers. Basic economics.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,553
|
Post by chiver78 on Jan 22, 2011 14:31:55 GMT -5
bills, chiver, could you please provide any empirical evidence that the 45 million aborted would have been net consumers over their lifetimes? That's what you're basically arguing. Thanks. sure, when you can provide the same that they would have all been taxpayers.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 14:33:23 GMT -5
bills, chiver, could you please provide any empirical evidence that the 45 million aborted would have been net consumers over their lifetimes? That's what you're basically arguing. Thanks. sure, when you can provide the same that they would have all been taxpayers. LOL. Please show me where I said this. Apparently there is a lack of basic understanding of economic laws on this board.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,495
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 22, 2011 14:33:35 GMT -5
And that was my question trae-how do you know most of the aborted would have been taxpayers.
|
|